Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Education Conference (Recommendations)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) if he will make a statement indicating the steps which the Government intend to take as a result of the Report of the Commonwealth Education Conference, Command Paper No. 841;
(2) if he will make a statement on the recent Report of the Commonwealth Education Conference, with particular reference to the policy of the present Government.

The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The Report of the Conference reflects the profound belief in the importance of education held in common by all the members of the Commonwealth; the United Kingdom Government accept the recommendations of the Conference wholeheartedly and for their part will do all they can to promote the Conference's objective of ensuring that the educational resources of the Commonwealth are shared more widely. The Government propose that £6 million should be spent over the next five years on the United Kingdom contribution to the various educational programmes recommended by the Conference.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that Answer and while realising that the Report is only four months old, may I ask him to particularise, either now or in a letter to me, what steps he is taking to advance technology and science in the areas concerned and what provision he is making

for students from those areas to visit other areas?

Mr. Alport: If the hon. and learned Member, who, I know, is interested in this subject, would care to come to see me, I will be only too glad to discuss these matters with him and give him ail the information I can.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Minister of State will have noticed that there is scarcely any reference in the Report to the whole subject of adult education, which is of great importance. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is tremendously interested in the problem of adult education, and see whether some provision can be made within the terms of the arrangements?

Mr. Alport: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that although there is no reference to adult education as such, the scholarships to which a great part of the plan refers are scholarships of a post-graduate nature, which will, of course, assist in that direction, at least to some extent.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) whether the London administrative unit to carry on the work of the Commonwealth Education Conference has now been set up; what staff are employed; and what is the estimated annual cost;
(2) if he will state the name of the British representative on the committee to continue the work of the Commonwealth Education conference; on what dates the committee has met; and whether he will publish a report of its proceedings.

Mr. Alport: A meeting of representatives of Commonwealth countries took place in London last month to consider the administrative arrangements recommended by the Commonwealth Education Conference. My noble Friend is in touch with other Commonwealth Governments about the conclusions of this meeting, and I hope to be able to make a statement soon.

Mr. Thomson: I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can he assure us that, whatever other difficulties there may be in the way of this modest administrative


unit, there will be no financial difficulties, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned? Will he also state that he will provide as much information as possible about the work of this committee? An informed public opinion is very necessary if there is to be a vigorous follow-through to the work of the Commonwealth Education Conference.

Mr. Alport: I can assure the hon. Member and the House that we are most anxious that the maximum amount of publicity should be given to what we regard as a most important development in Commonwealth relations. As for finance, I have already said that Her Majesty's Government are making available £6 million. I think the hon. Member can be assured that out of that sum there will be no difficulty in finding the necessary moneys for the unit to which he has referred.

Commonwealth Weeks

Mr. Tilney: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on the programme for Commonwealth Weeks in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Alport: The Commonwealth Exhibition will open in Liverpool on 19th November. It will be the focal point of Commonwealth Weeks to be held in a number of major cities during the next eighteen months. I am glad to say that Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret has graciously consented to inaugurate the Weeks in Liverpool. The Weeks immediately following will be held in Leeds, in January, Birmingham, in February, and Norwich, in March.
We hope that the exhibition, together with the associated displays, film shows, lectures and other activities, will enable the public to form a picture of the modern Commonwealth as a whole. It will also, I hope, show the public how effectively the Commonwealth cooperates in many fields, including trade, culture and education.
Commonwealth Governments have made substantial contributions to the programme, for which we are most grateful.

Mr. Tilney: I welcome the news that Her Royal Highness will open this exhibition, being sure that she will receive a great welcome in Liverpool, but will my hon. Friend ensure that in future planning local branches of the Royal Commonwealth Society, the Victoria League and the Overseas League will be consulted?

Mr. Alport: My hon. Friend's supplementary question deals with the representations made on behalf of some societies for the display of their leaflets at the exhibition. The exhibition is not very large, since it is a mobile one, but we are taking every step to associate all those societies with the work of the Weeks. Indeed, we have invited all those societies not only to give their active support but to make any contribution they can to making these Weeks a success.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Constitution

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what recommendations have been made by the Joint Advisory Council for the establishment of a Legislative Council for Bechuanaland; and how far these recommendations were unanimous.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the recommendation of the Constitutional Commission set up by the Joint Advisory Council in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Mr. Alport: The Committee of the Joint Advisory Council has recommended that a Legislative Council consisting of 21 elected members, 4 nominated and 10 official members, with the Resident Commissioner presiding, should be established with powers to pass legislation for the Territory, subject to reserve powers in the hands of the High Commissioner. The Report also recommends that an Executive Council should be created, to consist of 2 European and 2 African unofficial members of the Legislative Council, together with 6 officials.
The Committee's report was unanimous and was endorsed by the Joint Advisory Council without amendment.
It now remains for the Resident Commissioner to submit proposals to the High Commissioner, who will in turn submit his own proposals to my noble Friend.

Mr. Brockway: While welcoming this as a beginning to the legislature for Bechuanaland, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to have any period for a review of these proposals, which by no means represent racial equality or anything like democracy?

Mr. Alport: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Committee of the Joint Advisory Council, consisting of both European and African members, was unanimous in its recommendations and that the Joint Advisory Council itself, which also consisted of European and African members, was unanimous in endorsing them. The House can, therefore, be assured that there is wide support amongst all races for, I do not say necessarily the detailed, but at least the general lines upon which this proposal has been put forward.

Mineral Rights

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions have been reached regarding the control of mineral rights in Bechuanaland, the leasing of these rights to a private company, the training of Africans in skilled crafts, trade union organisation, and the provisions of housing estates with schools and clinics in the vicinity of the mines.

Mr. Alport: As the Answer to the hon. Member's five questions is inevitably detailed and lengthy, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Brockway: Why was this agreement kept secret? Will the Minister do his utmost to prevent the occurrence in Bechuanaland of a repetition of the deplorable labour conditions in Johannesburg, and give the Africans the opportunity to learn skilled trades?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will be aware that this agreement is one between the company concerned and the Bamangwato tribe. It is, therefore, in the interests of the two partners—if I may use that expression, which I regard as a proper and appropriate one—that the extent

of the agreement should not be published until they themselves have completed their negotiations.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the revenues and funds arising from this concession will go to the Protectorate exchequer, or will their use be limited to the tribe which is responsible for the agreement?

Mr. Alport: I appreciate the point to which the hon. Member is referring, but before answering it I would prefer to see the final negotiations completed between the tribe and the company.

Following is the Answer:
No new decisions have been reached about the control of mineral rights in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, which remains as laid down in Chapter 96 of the Laws, as amended. A number of prospecting and mineral grants have been made in accordance with the law.
The Bechuanaland Protectorate Government is opening an African Trade School at Gaberones for up to 120 pupils. Initially, the courses will be limited to carpentry, motor maintenance and building. No courses in mining skills are envisaged in the immediate future because there has not yet been sufficient mining development in the Territory to warrant it.
Establishment of trade unions is regulated by Chapter 124 of the Laws, as amended.
Only two small mines at present exist. Most African employees live at home, but those who live on these mines are housed in accordance with the Mining Health Proclamation (Chapter 99 of the Laws), which provides, under Section 16, for the accommodation and treatment of the sick. Since both mines are situated in tribal areas, tribal schools are easily accessible to the children of employees.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Congress and National Parties (Memorandum)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations what reply has been given by the High Commissioner for the Protectorates to the memorandum presented to him by the Joint Committee of the Basutoland Congress Party and the Basuto National Party on the subjects of the diamond concession, the Riotous Assembly Act, and the administrative record of Mr. Chaplin, the Resident Commissioner of Basutoland; and what reply he gave to the memorandum of the Basutoland Congress Party on the subject of the Draft Local Government Proclamation.

Mr. Alport: The High Commissioner in his reply to a memorandum from the Basutoland Congress Party stated that its comments on the Local Government Proclamation and the Diamond Mining Agreement were noted; that the constitutional instruments had been settled in consultation with the Paramount Chief and representatives of the Basutoland Council; and that the draft Basutoland Peace Proclamation was being held over for discussion in the new Basutoland National Council. The reply went on to say that the High Commissioner deplored the attack made in the memorandum on the Resident Commissioner and expressed the full confidence of my noble Friend and the High Commissioner in Mr. Chaplin and his devotion to the interests of the Basuto nation.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that this document was from both the major parties in Basutoland, would it be possible for not only the Riotous Assembly Act, but the other matters, including the diamond concession, which for forty-two years has been in effect a subsidiary of De Beers, to be held up so that they can be discussed by the new National Council?

Mr. Alport: Concerning the diamond concession, the Paramount Chief has appointed representatives to look after the interests of the Basuto nation and I see no reason to suppose that the interests of the Basuto nation in this matter will not be properly safeguarded.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Indus Waters

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the discussions in which he has been participating regarding a British contribution to a settlement of the problem of the Indus waters.

Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 18th June. Since then representatives of the International Bank and of the Governments of India and Pakistan have held discussions, which still continue, directed to the negotiation of a treaty. The International Bank has made proposals to Her Majesty's Government and to other friendly Governments for

a scheme for the financing of the settlement which it is hoped will be reached and these proposals are under consideration.

Mr. Thomson: Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the unfortunate international relationship which is now developing between India and China, the much better relations between India and Pakistan are one of the most hopeful features in this area? Can he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can, financially, to make sure that the scheme for the Indus waters goes ahead as quickly as possible?

Mr. Alport: All friends of India and Pakistan will welcome the great improvement that has taken place in the relations between the two countries. As friends of both countries, so far as we are able to help in any way we will certainly do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAKISTAN

Textile Training Centre, Lyallpur

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent the new training college being built at Lyallpur in Pakistan is receiving financial or other aid from Her Majesty's Government under the Colombo Plan.

Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government have undertaken to supply the textile training centre at present being built at Lyallpur with the bulk of its training equipment, to finance and recruit from this country four lecturers for the centre, including the principal, and to provide training in the United Kingdom for potential teaching staff from Pakistan.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that there is a second project available in that area for training officers in cooperative societies in co-operative work, that this has recently come before the Colombo Plan Committee, and that there has been some offer of support from the Canadian Government? Is he also aware that the Punjab has been the cradle of co-operation ever since the British Government helped to foster it there in 1908? Can he give an assurance that the Government will support the work of co-operatives in that area, through the new institute which is now


being proposed? Will he couple the name of the famous registrar of the British Indian Civil Service, Sir Malcolm Darling, with this kind of work?

Mr. Alport: That is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper. If the hon. Member wants me to give him information about it I hope he will put down a Question. The future policy of this institution must be a matter for the Pakistan Government and not for us.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Migrants to United Kingdom

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make representations to the Government of the Republic of India to ensure that intending migrants from India to the United Kingdom shall be furnished with bona fide British passports.

Mr. Alport: Throughout the difficult situation created by the arrival at United Kingdom ports of a number of migrants from India, some of whom were travelling on forged passports, we have had the fullest co-operation both from the Government of India and from their Acting High Commissioner in the United Kingdom.
The Government of India issued a public statement on 10th November in which they again emphasised that it was their policy to prevent the issue of passports valid for the United Kingdom to illiterate and semi-literate persons who do not know English. They added that instructions had been issued for a more rigorous scrutiny of travel documents at Indian ports, particularly if the destination of the holders was the United Kingdom or any other European country, and that recent migrants had been the dupes of unscrupulous travel agents and others.

Mr. Pannell: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but is it not a fact that the cost of repatriating these illegal imigrants was borne by the British Treasury? Does not my hon. Friend consider it reasonable, in the circum-stances, to suggest to the Indian Government that they should bear the charge, since these illegal immigrants came here as a result of evading the Indian law?

Mr. Alport: The question of financing repatriation is one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As I said in my main Answer, we have had the very closest co-operation from the Indian Government in dealing with a matter which they regard as being against their interests, just as much as it may produce complications for the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Sherwood Estate, Tunbridge Wells

Mr. Hornby: asked the Minister of Education whether he will approve the building of a primary school on the Sherwood Estate in Tunbridge Wells.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I regret that my right hon. Friend cannot add this school to the building programmes already announced.

Mr. Hornby: Will my hon. Friend take note that there has been very strong feeling locally about the lack of a school such as this in the Sherwood Estate area? Will he also take note that the application for the building of this school has appeared on the priority programme of both the Divisional Executive and the Kent County Council?

Mr. Thompson: Yes. It is agreed by my right hon. Friend that there should be a school on the estate. We have many more pressing claims on our resources for the next few years.

School Dentists

Miss Lee: asked the Minister of Education (1) by how much the supply of school dentists falls short of the number necessary to provide an adequate service; and by what date the present shortage will be remedied;
(2) what emergency measures he has considered to deal with the present shortage of school dentists; and if he will indicate their nature.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education in view of the widespread concern at the deterioration that has taken place in the school dental service, what action he has taken to improve the situation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. K. Thompson: Since 1951, when the number was at its lowest, there has been an increase of the equivalent of more than 300 full-time school dentists. In 1958 the number was over 1,000, but twice as many are needed to provide a fully comprehensive service. The shortage can be overcome only by a general increase in the supply of dentists. This is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health with whom my right hon. Friend is, of course, in close touch.

Miss Lee: How far are the Government pressing forward with supplementary services such as dental nurses, with I hope no discrimination against men—let both women and men take up the job—and hygienists? The Parliamentary Secretary must be aware that the record of the Government in the past few years is appalling, but we should all now like to co-operate to give the maximum help in the minimum time to the children.

Mr. Thompson: I do not think that the House will accept the final condemnation of the Government made by the hon. Lady. I assure her that the other two parts of the supplementary service are being proceeded with by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Dodds: Is it not a fact that the situation has worsened? Can the Parliamentary Secretary deny that in some places there are 600 or 700 children to one dentist? How can he and his right hon. Friend be so complacent? Why are they not trying to stir the Minister of Health into getting some in the schools and, under their own steam, inaugurating a campaign to encourage children to look after their teeth more and eat fewer "lollies"?

Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman does not help his case by his vehemence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The fact is that there are now the equivalent of about 300 more whole-time school dentists than there were in 1951. That is not a deterioration in the service. We are, nevertheless, very concerned to see an improvement and my right hon. Friend is co-operating with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Bevan: Is the hon. Member aware that he does not help his case by his evasiveness? How many dental hygienists are now in employment?

Mr. Thompson: If the right hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Order Paper I will endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Bevan: Has not this a direct relevance to the number of dentists available?

Mr. Thompson: I have to rely on the terms of the Questions addressed to me. I try to answer them.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. I tabled a specific Question asking the Minister:
what emergency measures he has considered to deal with the present shortage of school dentists; and if he will indicate their nature.
I have had no reply to that Question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. M. Stewart: As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the Minister was asked what steps he is taking to deal with the shortage of dentists. In preparing his Answer to that Question, surely he acquainted himself with the numbers of hygienists being brought into training. Can he not tell us?

Mr. Thompson: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The House, I have no doubt, has taken note of the Answers given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health in an exchange in the House on Monday.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not quite clear to hon. Members on this side of the House, if it is not equally clear to hon. Members opposite, that the decision, taken after very considerable investigation, to employ dental hygienists in New Zealand, which was adopted when I was there, was aimed at saving the work of skilled dentists? Therefore, the one has a direct relationship with the other.

Mr. Thompson: I have already informed the House that both the hygienists and the auxiliaries are being prepared for the service.

Miss Lee: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give some indication of the


scale of the operation now taking place? Are there 50 or are there 100 being trained? Where are they now trained?

Mr. Thompson: Those supplementary questions are appropriate to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health and not to me.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

University Entrants

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he will invite the National Foundation for Educational Research to investigate further the disparity between the numbers of public school and State entrants to the older universities, and the respective performances of both groups, as shown in the study recently conducted by the Cambridge University Sociological Society, a copy of which has been sent to him by the bon. Member for Itchen.

Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend is still examining the document which the hon. Member was good enough to send him a few days ago. The universities themselves, of course, are responsible for the selection of students and they are most directly concerned with the performance of undergraduates.

Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the study seems to show that twice as many public school boys as State grammar school boys go to Cambridge and that, when they get there, they do half as well? If that is true, does not it seem to indicate that the whole method of selection at Cambridge University should be looked into in the interests both of education and justice?

Mr. Thompson: The report is being examined by ray right hon. Friend, and I do not think that I would be wise to go further than that at this stage.

Secondary Education

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the progress being made to implement the proposals in the White Paper, Secondary Education for All.

Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has already approved school-building programmes for the two years 1960–61 and 1961–62, so that local authorities may plan ahead. The programmes provide for work to start on about 1,300 projects. More than half of these are for the reorganisation of all-age schools and improvements. Plans for adding 16,000 places to the training colleges are already in train and my right hon. Friend is reviewing the various means by which the number of teachers might be further increased.

Mr. Irving: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is already absolutely clear that the proper development of secondary education cannot be achieved within the financial provisions of the White Paper? Is he aware that many local education authorities are very greatly disturbed by the savage cuts that his Department has made in their proposals for school building for secondary education in the next two years? Is he also aware that the Kent Education Committee envisages, after calculation, that the proper improvement of their secondary education will take, not five years as set out in the White Paper, but thirty years? In view of the urgent necessity to improve secondary education, will the Government review the White Paper and its proposals?

Mr. Thompson: What has emerged is that the White Paper proposals are fundamentally sound, and that we are quite right to proceed with them as fast as we can. But we cannot do everything at once. We must use our resources to the best possible effect.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, whether the proposals are sound or not, they cannot be put into operation unless the local authorities have sufficient money, and that the money provided for them for the first two years in general grant has already been shown to be insufficient because the assumptions in the general grant Order as to what would happen to the salaries of teachers have already been falsified? What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Thompson: Nevertheless, the proposals in the White Paper for the first two of the five years are basically sound, and we propose to continue with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Machine-Tool Industry

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he will publish, in full, the Report of the investigations made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into the machine-tool industry.

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Education as representing the Minister for Science, whether he will make a statement as to the findings of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the condition of the machine-tool industry.

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he will now publish the Report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research dealing with the size, efficiency, capacity for research, and future prospects of the machine-tool industry.

Mr. K. Thompson: The Report of the investigations of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into the research and development requirements of the machine-tool industry was circulated in full, and in confidence, to the leaders of the industry, with whom D.S.I.R. is now discussing the conclusions and recommendations of the Report. The Department received considerable help from the industry in making the investigation and was given information by the co-operating firms on the understanding that no publication was intended. In these circumstances, my noble Friend does not feel that it is open to him to agree to the publication of the Report. With regard to Question No. 28, pending the conclusion of the discussions now in progress my noble Friend considers that it would be premature to make any further, statement.

Mr. Albu: If the hon. Gentleman ever sees the noble Lord the Minister for Science, will he ask him if he does or does not consider that the condition of this industry is of national importance and that the publication of the Report is urgent? Will he also ask him if he is aware that there is a general view

that the industry undertakes far too little research and development, particularly into the use of electronic controls on machine tools; that there is increasing competition from Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the United States and especially from Russia, where they are commencing the mass production of automatic machinery; that the British industry employs far too few university graduates, having recruited two last year when the German industry recruited five hundred—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and that in general this is an industry in which very severe Government intervention is urgently needed?

Mr. Thompson: Whatever the truth in the detail of those remarks, I think that they all fit into the statement I made that when my noble Friend has had discussions with the industry he will be in a better position to decide whether to make a further statement.

Mr. Lee: We are asking why the nation cannot be told the nature of the Report. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the machine-tool industry is the genesis of most of the manufacturing industries of Britain? Therefore, it is not a question of whether the people running the machine-tool industry are satisfied: it is a question of the economic health of the people and the levels of employment. Will he, therefore, ask his noble Friend to look again at our request that there should be a public report of the findings of the D.S.I.R.?

Mr. Thompson: I think that we must rely on my noble Friend, when he has completed his discussions, to decide whether he can make a further statement which may deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Edelman: Is the Minister aware that the matter is urgent as well as serious? Is he aware that, if he were to walk through a major Coventry motor factory, he would find that the most advanced machines are German, Swiss or French? Further, is he aware that the decline in the industry, represented by the drop in the order book from nearly £90 million in 1957 to about £60 million today, is directly due to inadequate investment in research and development and also an undue, though profitable, concentration on traditional


designs? What will the Government do to bring the industry into line with foreign competition?

Mr. Thompson: The Government now have the benefit of the Report, and I think that they ought to have a chance to consider it.

Textile Machinery

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Education, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he will ask the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to carry out an inquiry into the textile machinery industry, similar to that recently carried out on the machine-tool industry.

Mr. K. Thompson: The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research proposes to investigate in turn the research and development needs of those industries which, on the available evidence, appear not to be attracting a sufficient share of the nation's resources for technological development. My noble Friend will bring to the attention of the Research Council the suggestion of the hon. Member that the industry making textile machinery might be included at an early stage in their plans.

Mr. Albu: Will the hon. Gentleman convey to his noble Friend the view, commonly held, that this industry is another of those that is losing ground today to overseas competitors because of inadequate use of research and development departments and of graduate scientists and engineers, with the result that most of the inventions in textile machinery are coming from abroad? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to ask his noble Friend whether the machine-tool and textile-machinery industries are not, in fact, a test case for the appointment of a Minister for Science? Or is that just a piece of flannel to blind the electors to the real facts about our British industries, and is it a fact that it is not intended that the Government should take action at all?

Mr. Thompson: I informed the hon. Member that my noble Friend would have his attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not think that I should go further.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the two main purposes of the Cotton Industry Act that the House passed in July of this year was to enable the mills that remained in the industry to re-equip themselves with modernised machinery, very largely—indeed, almost entirely—at the public expense; and that it therefore becomes increasingly necessary that the British textile-machinery industry should be ready to deal with what may be a very large demand?

Mr. Thompson: It would be very wrong for us to overlook the very creditable record of this industry. My noble Friend is willing to draw the attention of the Committee to the remarks made in the House today.

Mr. Osborne: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain sections of the textile machine building industry are at present selling large quantities of their products to Russia, and that the Russians buy only the finest machines in the world? It is dreadful that hon. Members who know so little about the building of textile machinery should speak as they do.

Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I have had a letter from one of the major production managers of one of the most successful textile machinery firms, which confirms every word that I have said?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Chemical Sprays (Bees)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the concern arising from the widespread destruction of bees by the increasing use of chemical sprays; what consideration has been given to the matter; and what action by his Department is contemplated.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I agree that concern was caused by serious losses of bees last June, but these were due to abnormal weather conditions. I consider that the best way of meeting this problem is by co-operation between farmers, spraying contractors and beekeepers, and


by continued education and advice. My Department is helping in all this. For instance, a meeting this month has been arranged of all the interested organisations to discuss the present position.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the evidence of famous scientists about the misuse of sprays, will the Minister bear in mind that many experts think that it is about time that a Royal Commission made an investigation into the effects of these sprays, as there is a feeling that their use is doing a tremendous amount of damage?

Mr. Hare: As I have said, we are very much in touch with this situation, but I do not think that we should be too alarmist. Bees have remarkable social habits. The men do no work. The working population consists of the females, except for the queen. I am glad to say that in this case my advice is that, although much of the working population may have been destroyed, the colonies usually recover.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this relates not only to bees? Tomatoes are also involved, and so are other things. As these sprays constitute a considerable danger to neighbours, is it not time that there should be supervision?

Mr. Hare: As the Question was connected with bees, I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question to me on the general subject of sprays.

Vegetable Crops (Prospects)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the vegetable prospects during the next few months; and what action is contemplated by his Department to ensure reasonable supplies.

Mr. John Hare: The exceptionally dry summer has reduced the yields of some vegetable crops, and home-grown supplies of root crops and greens will be below average. Vegetables should, however, be in reasonable supply during the next two months, and if the improvement which has followed the recent rains continues there should be better prospects for cauliflowers and spring greens in the new year.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the Minister's rather hopeful statement, may the housewife take it that during the next few months the price of vegetables will not rise unduly high?

Mr. Hare: It would be very hard for me to make a forecast on that. What I have said is perfectly clear. I have said that there should be reasonable supplies, though I have indicated that they are not as good as they were last year. I think my Answer is very clear.

Arsenical Sprays

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage following its consideration of the case of the woman who died after drinking water contaminated by an arsenical potato spray mixture; and what steps he proposes to take in consequence thereof.

Mr. John Hare: I have received the Advisory Committee's recommendations and, as I told the hon. Member on 2nd November, these are being discussed with the agricultural and chemical industries. I hope to make a statement very soon.

Mr. Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement within, say, the next week? This is a matter of very considerable urgency, and I ask him to deal with it as an urgent matter.

Mr. Hare: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that I am dealing with this as urgently as possible. I can assure him that I will make a statement as soon as I reasonably can.

Mr. Willey: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that not only is there anxiety here in this and other cases, but nigh to panic in the United States? Will he ensure that we devote sufficient resources to research into the use of these substances, and see that that research is not held up by vested interests?

Mr. Hare: I am very sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the last to try to spread panic in this country. I assure him that I am considering this matter, and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Pyrethrum

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study has been made by his Department of pyrethrum as an insecticide; and with what result.

Mr. John Hare: The properties and uses of pyrethrum as an insecticide have been well known to my Department for many years. Research into its active principles and application to insect pests on growing plants and in stored food has been going on for some time at the appropriate research centres.
The limitations on the use of pyrethrum on agricultural and horticultural crops are that it has so far only been shown to control a small range of insect pests. Its active life is short and its cost relatively high. It is a useful insecticide against household pests and my technical staff recommend it for use in food stores against the warehouse moth.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would my right hon. Friend agree that pyrethrum is much less harmful than some of the insecticides at present in use?

Mr. Hare: It may be less harmful but it is also, I am afraid, rather less useful against many types of insects.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Port Wine

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent port wine, imported into this country from Portugal, will benefit by the tariff reductions being negotiated with the Outer Seven; to what extent, since port is regarded as an agricultural product and the wine duties as revenue duties, it will be automatically debarred from benefiting through this particular scheme; and whether he will recommend alternative action being taken to facilitate an increase of port exports from Portugal to Great Britain, having regard to the substantial benefits which would accrue to Anglo-Portuguese trade as a whole.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): I can confirm that, for the reasons given by my

hon. Friend, port will not benefit by the tariff reductions proposed for the European Free Trade Association. In reply to the second part of the Question, the wine duties, like any other revenue duties, are a matter for the Budget and my hon. Friend will not expect me to comment.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that if port wine is not brought into the new arrangements with the Outer Seven it will cause a good deal of disappointment to port wine drinkers in this country? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind also that the duty on port wine has gone up by 375 per cent. since before the war? Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay attention to that point in the Budget?

Mr. Barber: I am sure my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the personal interest which my hon. Friend has in port wine.

Polling Station Personnel (Fees)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis the remuneration of polling station personnel is fixed; what machinery exists for its revision; and when it was last reconsidered.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The maximum fees payable by returning officers to people employed at polling stations are prescribed by the Treasury under Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. They are fixed on the basis of fair and reasonable rates in the light of the nature of the work and the time spent on it. They axe revised from time to time in consultation with the Home Office and representatives of town clerks, clerks of the peace, and clerks of county councils. The last revision took effect from April, 1958.

Mr. Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these people do a very long and hard day's work for extremely modest remuneration? In view of the very small amounts involved to the Treasury, will he ask his right hon. Friend to see that this matter is reviewed again at an early date?

Sir E. Boyle: Neither the Home Office nor the Treasury have received any complaints about the adequacy of the present fees, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people employed in the polling stations are pensioners who are employed only during the time of polling? Could he arrange that they receive their pensions free of any deductions?

Sir E. Boyle: I think there are difficulties about that, but I wholly understand the views of hon. Members about the importance of this work and I will take note of the points which have been made today.

Purchase Tax

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total revenue he now estimates he will receive from Purchase Tax on furniture during the present financial year.

Mr. Barber: The Budget estimate included about £8¾ million in respect of Purchase Tax on furniture.

Mr. Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is time that this tax on furniture was removed?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that that is not a question with which I can deal now.

War Loan

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the terms in which his predecessor invited holders of five per cent. War Loan to convert their holdings into three and a half per cent. stock in 1932.

Mr. Barber: Yes, Sir, I am arranging for the circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the text of the letter which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote to all stockholders, together with the explanatory memorandum and the formal announcement setting out the terms of conversion and redemption, which were enclosed with that letter.

Following are the documents:

F.13047/2.

Chancellor of the Exchequer,

Treasury Chambers,

Whitehall, S.W.

30th June, 1932.

Sir or Madam,

With this letter you will find papers relating to the Conversion of the War Loan.

For nearly three years the Government of the day have been entitled under the terms of the original prospectus to give notice at any time to repay the Loan, and Parliament included in the Finance Act of last Autumn a variety of provisions preparing the way for a conversion scheme.

The Government have now given notice to repay the holdings of those who apply for repayment, but at the same time they invite all holders of the Loan to continue in it on the new terms. The principal change from the point of view of the ordinary investor is the reduction of the rate of interest. The special privilege of payment of the dividends without deduction of Income Tax at the source is being continued.

The Government ask you to notify as soon as possible your assent to continue in the Loan. If you do so not later than the 31st July next you will be entitled to a cash bonus at the rate of £1 for every £100 of your holding, payable within fourteen days of the receipt of your notification. The Blue Form marked B at the top is the form on which to notify your assent.

The lower rate of interest payable in June of next year and afterwards (though it is compensated to some extent by the cash bonus payable at once), will undoubtedly bear hardly upon some holders whose income comes chiefly from the Loan. But the change was inevitable. No one can reasonably expect to continue to enjoy the right to 5 per cent. interest when the national credit justifies a much lower rate and the country is strong enough to overcome any difficulties attendant on a conversion operation. If holders are called upon to make a sacrifice, they will be quick to recognise that there is no section of the community from which sacrifices have not been asked in this time of trouble—sacrifices which are being resolutely borne.

Moreover, what is clearly requisite in the interest of our country cannot in the long run prove injurious to interests of the holders. The successful conversion of the War Loan will not merely make a great saving in State expenditure—the loan is so vast that this saving will be in the region of £30,000,000 a year—but it will pave the way for lower interest rates and enable industry more easily to obtain capital with which to employ more people and produce more goods as our trade conditions improve.

Accordingly I confidently make my appeal to all British holders, primarily to those in this country who form the majority, but not forgetting also those who dwell across the seas and whose patriotism bums none the less brightly on that account.

In undertaking this conversion—the largest operation of the kind ever undertaken in this or any other country—the Government are carrying out what they conceive to be their duty to the State with due regard to the interests of holders. The terms which are offered have been fixed as fair and equitable both to holders and to the country in the light of the rapid fall in interest rates now in progress and of the conditions that are everywhere tending to enhance the value of British Government securities.

I ask you, then, in your own interest (in order to secure the cash bonus), but much more because it is going to help the country, to notify your assent without delay.

Your response, made swiftly and gladly, will help once more to show the world the unshakeable determination of this great nation to fight its way through its troubles and thereby to encourage and inspire others to emulate its example.

I have the honour to be,

Sir or Madam,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) N. CHAMBERLAIN.

ANNOUNCEMENT TO HOLDERS OF £5 PER CENT. WAR LOAN. 1929–1947

The LORDS COMMISSIONERS of HIS MAJESTY'S TREASURY having given notice in the London Gazette of the 30th June, 1932, of their intention to redeem the £5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–1947, at par on the 1st December, 1932, and having declared that Part III of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, shall come into operation, authorise THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY of the BANK OF KNGLAND and THE GOVERNOR AND COMPANY of the BANK OF IRELAND to make the following Announcement.

Holders who so desire may have their holdings in the Loan continued after the 1st December, 1932, subject to all the existing terms, conditions and incidents of the Loan with the following modifications, as specified in the Notice in the London Gazette, which will take effect as from the 1st December, 1932:—

(a) The rate of interest will be reduced to £3 10s. per cent. per annum.
(b) The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury reserve to themselves the right, on giving three calendar months' notice of each operation in the London Gazette, to redeem the Loan, at par, either by a single operation or by successive operations, on the 1st December, 1952, or at any time or times thereafter.
(c) The right to tender Stock and Bonds of the Loan to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in satisfaction of amounts due on account of Death Duties will lapse.
(d) The undertaking to set aside a sum monthly to form a fund for the purchase of Stock or Bonds of the Loan for the purpose of providing against depreciation will cease to have effect and the balance of the fund will cease to be applicable for the said purpose.
(e) The name of the Loan will be changed to £3 10s. per cent. War Loan.

Dividends on inscribed and registered Stock of the Loan will continue to be paid without deduction of Income Tax, but the income derived from such dividends will be assessable to Income Tax in the hands of the recipients.

The exemptions from United Kingdom taxation which now attach to holdings of the Loan by persons neither domiciled nor ordinarily resident (or in the case of Income Tax, not ordinarily resident) in the United Kingdom will continue in force.

The principal and interest of the Loan are and will remain a charge on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

At any time up to and including the 30th September, 1932, holders may notify the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland, respectively, in the prescribed manner of their desire to continue their holdings in the Loan. Those who give due notification on or before the 31st July, 1932*, will receive a Cash Bonus at the rate of £1 per £100 nominal of the amount of their holdings. Those who give notification after the 31st July* will not receive this Cash Bonus.

Holders who wish to have their holdings redeemed in cash on the 1st December, 1932, must notify the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland respectively, in the prescribed manner, not later than the 30th September, 1932.

Holders who have not notified in the prescribed manner, on or before the 30th September, 1932, their desire to have their holdings either continued in the Loan or redeemed in cash, will, in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act. 1931, be deemed to have accepted the offer to continue their holdings in the Loan, subject to the conditions set out above. No Cash Bonus will be payable in respect of such holdings.

In the case of inscribed and registered holdings of the £5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–1947, which are to be redeemed, the Books of the Loan will be closed on the evening of the 30th September, 1932, and such holdings will cease to be transferable at the close of business on that date.

Commission at the under-mentioned rates will be paid to Bankers, Stockbrokers and Solicitors or Scottish Law Agents on continued holdings if the Forms of Request for Continuance lodged with the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland bear their stamp:—

If notified not later than the 3Ist July, 1932–5s. per £100 nominal;

If notified after the 31st July, 1932, but not later than the 30th September, 1932–2squote 6d. per £100 nominal.

INSCRIBED AND REGISTERED STOCK.—An Explanatory Note containing directions and the

*Reasonable extension of time will be allowed in any case where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Bank that the delay in giving due notification was due solely to the permanent or temporary absence from the United Kingdom for the Irish Free State as the case may be) of the holder or, in the case of a joint account, of one or more of the necessary signatories.


relevant forms are being sent to all Stockholders whose holdings are inscribed or registered in the Books of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland at the date of this Announcement. (In the case of Joint Accounts the forms are being sent only to the holder whose name stands first in the account).

BEARER BONDS.—No notice can be sent by post to holders of Bearer Bonds. If they desire to continue their holdings in the Loan and to obtain the Cash Bonus, or to apply for redemption, their bonds, together with all un-matured coupons, must be lodged at the Bank of England Loans Office, 5 and 6, Lombard Street, London, E.C.3, before the appropriate dates. The relevant form will then be supplied for completion, or it may be obtained on application at any Bank in the United Kingdom or in the Irish Free State.

Copies of this Announcement; of the Explanatory Note issued to Stockholders by the Bank of England; and of the relevant forms, may be obtained from the Bank of England. Head Office and Branches; from the Government Brokers; and from any Banking Office and Stock Exchange in Great Britain. Copies of this Announcement and of the documents relating to holdings in the books of the Pank of Ireland, in Dublin or Belfast respectively, may be obtained from the Head Office and Branches of the Bank of Ireland, and from any Banking Office and Stock Exchange in the Irish Free State or Northern Ireland as the case may be.

N.B.—Stock registered in the Books of the General Post Office will be continued or redeemed at the Post Office under the arrangements set forth in the separate Announcement issued by H.M. Postmaster-General, and not at the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland. Copies of the Announcement and the forms for use in connection with such stock can be obtained at any Post Office in the United Kingdom.

BANK OF ENGLAND,

30th June, 1932.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

To Holders of £5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–1947, Inscribed or Registered in the Books of the Bank of England.

In this envelope, in addition to a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer containing an important message to you, you will find three* documents, a small slip printed in red*, and an envelope.

The first document, marked A, (on white paper) is a copy of an Announcement made under the authority of the Treasury, giving full particulars of the present offer.

* In the case of Joint Accounts two of these documents, namely the Form of Request for Continuance and the Redemption Form, and the slip printed in red, are being sent only to the Holder whose name stands first on the account.

The second, marked B, (on blue paper) is the Form of Request for Continuance in the Loan. The slip, printed in red, is for use with this Form only.

The third, marked C, (on pink paper) is the Redemption Form for use only by persons applying for repayment.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE YOUR HOLDING AND EARN THE CASH BONUS

For this you should use the Blue Form marked B.

Attach the slip (printed in red) to that Form at the place marked for it and sign your name in the space marked X on the Form. The whole of your holding on the 30th June, 1932, or, if you have disposed of any part of it meanwhile, the balance of it at the date when you sign the Form, will then be continued.

If the holding stands in the names of two persons, both should sign. If there are more than two, it will be enough if the Form is signed by a majority of the Holders.

If you have lost or mislaid the slip, you should, in addition to signing the Form at X, fill up the space marked Z as directed on the Form.

IMPORTANT—CASH BONUS

The Government particularly ask that Holders who wish to have their holdings continued should notify their decision as quickly as possible, and they have undertaken that if you send the Blue Form to the Bank of England not later than the 3Ist July. 1932, you will receive a Cash Bonus at the rate of £1 (One Pound) for every £100 nominal of the amount of your holding. If your holding is less than £100, the Bonus will be the appropriate fraction of £1.

This Bonus will be paid to you within two weeks of the receipt of the Blue Form properly filled up. In the case of the ordinary investor it will not be chargeable to Income Tax.†

Requests for Continuance may still be made after 31st July, 1932, but will not then carry the right to a bonus, unless you are abroad when this letter is sent to you, in which case you may be allowed an extension of time for claiming the bonus (see the footnote to the Announcement marked A).

TRUSTEES

Trustees and other persons acting in a fiduciary character are expressly authorised, under Section 13 (1) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, to apply for continuance in the Loan.

Under Section 15 (2) of the same Act, it is provided that as between persons having any beneficial interest in a holding, any cash bonus payable shall belong to the persons entitled to the income of the holding on the day when the bonus is payable.

† This does not apply to a person who is carrying on a trade which consists wholly or partly in dealing in securities.

POSTING

If the form is posted in the United Kingdom in the special envelope provided, no stamp is needed.

No other document need be sent with a Request for Continuance.

FUTURE DIVIDENDS

On the 1st December next you will receive your usual half-yearly dividend at the old rate of £5 per cent. per annum. After that all dividends will be at the new rate of £3 10s. per cent. per annum, payment being made as before on the 1st June and 1st December.

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO IF YOU WISH TO APPLY FOR REDEMPTION

If you wish to have your holding redeemed at par on the 1st December, 1932, you must notify your wish to the Bank of England not later than the 30th September, 1932, on the Pink Form C.

In this case the Pink Form must be completed over the signatures of all the Holders in the account concerned (unless a "demand" to act by a majority under the Government Stock Regulations, 1918, as amended by the Government Stock Regulations, 1929, has previously been made and recorded in the books of the Bank) and returned to the Bank, accompanied by the relative Register Certificate(s) where the Stock is registered as "Transferable by Deed".

GENERAL

If by the 30th September, 1932, you have not completed and sent to the Bank of England either the Blue Form or the Pink Form, you will be deemed under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1931, to have accepted the offer to continue your holding in the Loan subject to the conditions set out in the Announcement marked A.

If you hold Stock on more than one account, separate Forms are being sent to you for each account. Only one account may be covered by each Form.

Stock of the £5 per cent. War Loan, 1929–1947, acquired after the 30th June, 1932, will not be added to an existing account. For such Stock new accounts will be opened in the books of the Bank of England: and if such an account is opened not later than the 30th September, 1932, special Forms of Request for Continuance and Redemption Forms will be sent by the Bank.

In the case of holdings which are to be redeemed the Books of the Stock will be finally closed on the evening of the 30th September, 1932, and such holdings will cease to be transferable at the close of business on that date.

If you are in any doubt how to complete the forms you should consult your Banker, Stockbroker or Solicitor, or you may obtain advice and assistance free of charge on personal application at any Bank or Banking Office, even though you do not keep an account there.

Chief Accountant's Office,

Bank of England,

30th June, 1932.

Commonwealth Trade and Economic Conference

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the progress made in carrying out the decisions of the Commonwealth Trade and Economic Conference at Montreal.

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend gave illustrations of the action being taken in his Answer to the hon. Member on 3rd March of this year. Much further progress has been made since then and concrete results have been achieved. For example, a new International Wheat Agreement has been negotiated, we have removed many restrictions on imports, and arrangements have been made for Exchequer loans to the Colonies. Particular measures have been announced from time to time and will be well known to the House. The Commonwealth Consultative Economic Council has held meetings at both official and at Ministerial level.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Trade with U.S.S.R.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether before commencing negotiations next year for revising the current trading arrangements with Russia, he will undertake to consult all industries in this country which may suffer in consequence of Russian imports.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): The views of industry, with which we are in constant touch, will be kept in mind when our trading arrangements with the Soviet Union come to be reviewed. My right hon. Friend is also prepared, of course, to consider any specific representations that may be made.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that there are one or two industries that might suffer as a result of imports from Russia and that we do not want to see a reduction in employment or in production arising from such imports?

Mr. Erroll: I know that my right hon. Friend will be glad to hear from my hon. Friend if he cares to write to him on the subject.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister of State represent to the President of the Board of Trade the fact that trade exchanges take place only if they are of benefit to both sides, and that it is a major British interest to break down the Iron Curtain in every way in which Russia is willing to co-operate?

Hovercraft

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that development work on Hovercraft vehicles is now being carried out in the United States of America by the Curtiss Wright Corporation, the Ford Motor Company, the General Dynamics Corporation, the Gyrodyne Corporation of America, Spectronics Incorporated, the Doak Aircraft Company, Piasecki Aircraft, etc.; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken in the United Kingdom to maintain full development progress in this field of transport.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am aware that work is proceeding in the United States on various forms of vertical take-off and ground-effect vehicles but much of this is apparently at the research stage. Among the ground-effect machines those using annular jets may well prove to be the most versatile in their possible uses, and in this class the British Hovercraft, sponsored by the National Research Development Corporation, is, we think the most advanced. The Corporation's subsidiary, Hovercrafts Development Ltd., is in touch with a number of firms about possible manufacture.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to give adequate support to research in this matter, particularly in view of the fact that quite a large amount of success is being achieved by the companies to which I have referred, and it is important that we should maintain a lead in this very important industry which we initiated?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree that we ought to retain the lead that we have. Three directors of Hovercraft Development Limited have already visited the United States to investigate the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his Question. I can assure him that we are watching this

matter. We think we are in the lead and we intend to keep it.

Mr. Albu: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a perfect example of public support by a publicly-owned company of a research and development project?

Mr. Rodgers: I think it is a very good example.

U.S.A. (Wool Tariff Quota)

Mr. Wade: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the removal of quota restrictions on goods imported into this country from the United States of America, what further representations have been made to the Government of the United States of America for the removal of the wool tariff quota restricting the import into the United States of America of goods from this country.

Mr. Erroll: The United States Administration agreed last September, at the request of Her Majesty's Government, to re-negotiate the wool tariff quota and I hope it will be possible to arrange for this to be done as soon as the necessary preliminary inquiries in Washington have been completed.

Mr. Wade: While I welcome the removal of quota restrictions, whether by this country or by other countries, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that this American wool tariff quota is a particularly objectionable form of restriction? Would it not be appropriate to endeavour to persuade the American Government that the removal of this quota altogether so as to coincide with the removal of these import restrictions would in some respects benefit America?

Mr. Erroll: This is a very difficult question. The American Government have recognised the problem in their willingness to re-negotiate the whole matter.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this tariff quota is regarded by many Americans as well as by people here as a vicious form of protectionism? Why should not the Americans be willing to make a concession here at the same time as we are making a concession for them?

Mr. Erroll: Because that would have been very complicated to arrange.

Trade with China

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why he has decided to discontinue the arrangements for imports from China to the United Kingdom which have facilitated a marked increase in our exports to China over the last three years;
(2) why he has decided to impose disabilities on importers from China which do not apply to importers of similar goods from other countries.

Mr. Erroll: With permission, I will answer these Questions together.
China is now being given the same licensing treatment as other State trading countries in the Sino-Soviet Bloc. The new quotas allow for a further expansion of imports from China.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I did not want these two Questions answered together because in a way they are different Questions. However, I assume that this will enable me to put two supplementary questions. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by this act he is reducing China from relaxation area status to eastern area status and thereby limiting her exports to this country, in consequence preventing her purchasing the amount of goods that she is at present buying in this country, or even increasing those purchases?
Arising out of Question No. 53, may I ask what is the policy decision inherent in deciding that it is better to buy nuts, say, from Brazil than from China?

Mr. Erroll: China has been transferred to the Soviet bloc for trading purposes because she is a State trading country and, therefore, it is appropriate to treat her as such. About three-quarters of what we import from China will still be free of restrictions, and those items which are now subject to quota restrictions will have quotas in excess of present trading figures, so there is every prospect of a further increase of trade with China.

Mr. Rankin: Against my wish, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, two Questions were taken together which, in my view, were separate. I put two supplementary questions. What is the answer to the second one about nuts?

Mr. Erroll: Generally speaking, nuts can be imported from those countries from which importers want to buy them.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under this arrangement, imports of raw silk from China will seriously affect my constituency of Macclesfield and the silk industry? Will he look at this case in particular?

Mr. Erroll: I shall be very glad to look at this again, but I do not think that the position is as serious as my hon. Friend suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR DEFENCE (POLICY)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister to what extent control of air defence policy has been transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Ministry of Aviation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The creation of the Ministry of Aviation has not affected the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, as laid down in the White Paper on central organisation for defence published in July, 1958.

Mr. Lipton: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reply will be viewed with great satisfaction by Service Departments and the general public who applauded his wise decision to transfer his right hon. Friend from Defence to the less senior post of Aviation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has thought fit, in a supplementary question, to introduce an attack upon the former Minister of Defence. I should like to say that it is my view that he did very fine work there, and I regard it as a very good thing that he has undertaken an extremely difficult task at my special request.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister, nevertheless, clear up some confusion about the exact situation and relationship between the Ministry of Aviation and the Ministry of Defence? The Minister of Aviation has taken over many of the functions of the Minister of Supply which, I think, came under the Minister of Defence. Does the Ministry of Aviation now come under the Ministry of Defence?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will, I think, see that there is no serious change in what is there laid down.

Oral Answers to Questions — LANE PICTURES

Mr. Teeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement as to the decisions reached concerning the future of the Lane pictures.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to announce the result of his consideration of the bequest by the late Sir Hugh Lane of pictures now housed in London galleries and to make a statement of the Government's present policy with regard to their destination.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer these Questions together at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister what consideration he has given to the present relationship between Parliament and the nationalised industries; and what plan he has in mind for bringing that relationship into line with the wishes of Members in all parties in the House.

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern felt in all parts of the House that hon. Members should have adequate opportunities in this House of expressing their views on the working of nationalised industries. The precise arrangements needed for this purpose have presented a problem to which no entirely satisfactory solution has yet been found. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to discuss the matter with those concerned—including, I understand, yourself, Mr. Speaker—and through the usual channels. In undertaking these consultations, he will take account of the Report of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries which was published in the last Parliament and also of any views expressed by private Members.

Sir T. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very full reply. Will he and the Leader of the House bear in mind that, nowadays, the Government and we who support the Government on this side of the House are largely identified in the public mind with the nationalised industries, and yet, as he himself has said, we can find out little

about them, whether they are a failure or a success? Will the discussions which are to take place bring about a better state of affairs?

The Prime Minister: I realise that nationalisation is a rather sensitive subject at the moment, on both sides, and with so many hesitant angels about I must beware of the folly of any precipitate action.

Mr. Shinwell: Without entering into the merits of the question, because that does not arise at this stage, will the right hon. Gentleman say how his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House proposes to consult, apart from the usual channels, back benchers who are interested in this subject? Does he propose to approach them and ask for their opinion or are we to approach him and be received by him in order to express it?

The Prime Minister: I understand that it will be what is nowadays called a two-way traffic. My right hon. Friend has indicated to me that private Members have not been backward in coming forward.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Prime Minister aware that, apart from any political arguments on nationalisation, there are many of us in the House who feel that the time has really arrived when the interests of the consumer are the all-important factor here, and we, as Members of Parliament, have a right to put Questions and, whether they are nationalised industries or not, in this instance we demand the right to be heard?

The Prime Minister: I am very interested in that observation also. It seems to me that we are coming very close together. The "one nation" is being born.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the Prime Minister remember that, a few months ago, in the last Parliament, he gave a supplemenary answer the effect of which was to say that none of the nationalised industries paid its way. Is he aware that that statement was untrue? Will he, therefore, include in the arrangements he is making provision to ensure that he and his colleagues are rather better informed about the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: I really do not remember the supplementary answers I may have given some months ago; I must, of course, look them up. It is true to say that very heavy charges fall upon the Revenue and the taxpayer through the nationalised industries.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many essential industries and services on which the economic prosperity and the future of the nation depend which are at present not nationalised? Will he consider in his arrangements devising a scheme to bring about some measure of accountability to the House of Commons for those industries?

The Prime Minister: I observe that upon industry in general many Questions—there have been some today on the Order Paper—are put down to the Board of Trade or to the Treasury. As I understand it, this is not a matter really of the merits or demerits of nationalisation. The Question is about whether we in the House of Commons can find a method, by general agreement, to have more informed debates or better information. We know that there are difficulties in this matter. I think that the procedure which I outlined is one which the House can use in order to reach a balanced decision on what is the best procedure for the House to be informed, without undue or improper interruption in the detailed management of these industries.

Mr. Bevan: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a general desire in all parts of the House that the nationalised industries should be much more narrowly interrogated in the House itself? That is a view which we all share. Will he take into account also the need to provide similar opportunities for questioning those private industries which receive far higher subventions from the public purse than those received by the nationalised industries?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is a general view that the nationalised industries should be subject to detailed Questions. As I remember it, when all this began, there was a formula laid down at the time, I think, when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office. We have now to consider whether that formula needs revision and whether it can be revised

without interference with the effective management of the industries.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister answer my right hon. Friend's further question about privately-owned industry? Is it not sound practice, when there are subsidies to private industries, that those private industries also should be made accountable to the House?

The Prime Minister: If there are subsidies, the matter can be debated when the subsidies are voted.

Mr. Bevan: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think we can pursue this further now. Mr. Fernyhough. Question No. 50.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF JAPAN (TALKS)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Prime Minisiter whether he will make a statement on his conversations with Mr. Kishi, the Japanese Prime Minister, when he visited London in August.

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will publish an account of his recent official conversations with the Prime Minister of Japan.

The Prime Minister: It is not customary to divulge the details of confidential talks with statesmen of other countries. A joint communiqué was issued on 15th July, at the end of Mr. Kishi's visit.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Prime Minister aware that, when Mr. Kishi returned to Japan, he held a Press conference and at that Press conference he told the correspondents that the British Prime Minister had told him that Japan's policy of not recognising Communist China was wise and realistic? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is playing fair to tell the Japanese to do something which we ourselves do not do, and does he think that it will help to reach a sensible peace at any summit talks if he continues this isolation of China?

The Prime Minister: In the first place, I would not wish to go beyond the communiqué issued for once we do that all these private talks will become impossible, but in fact I am informed that the Japanese Prime Minister did not


use the words quoted. I will read to the House what he said:
I stated to Prime Minister Macmillan my views to the effect that Japan has under the present circumstances no intention of undertaking recognition of Communist China but desires to improve economic relations with her. He showed understanding of my views.

Mr. Healey: Is the Prime Minister aware that reports of Mr. Kishi's account of their conversation, correct or not, have created a widespread impression that the Government's policy on China is double-faced? In order to correct that impression, will the right hon. Gentleman now agree that, at a time when the whole world is deeply concerned with the threat of Chinese foreign policy, it is neither wise nor realistic to pretend that the Chinese Government do not exist?

The Prime Minister: That is another question. I am glad that the opportunity has been granted to me by a Question to give the House a correct account of the remarks which the Prime Minister of Japan made.

At the end of Questions—

LANE PICTURES

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 46 and 47 together.
I have to inform the House that an agreement has been concluded between the Commissioners of Public Works of the Irish Republic and the Trustees of the National Gallery, London, in regard to the Lane pictures.
A copy of the agreement is being placed in the Library. It provides that the 39 Lane pictures will be divided into two groups, which will be lent, in turn, for public exhibition in Dublin for successive periods of five years, over a total period of twenty years.
Her Majesty's Government welcome these arrangements and consider that for the duration of the agreement they offer a solution of a question which has been the subject of controversy for a long time. They will not themselves during the currency of the agreement initiate or give support to any proposal for an alternative arrangement concerning the Lane pictures.
I trust that the conclusion of this agreement will be welcomed by the House.

Mr. Teeling: Does my right hon. Friend realise how delighted those who have been interested in this subject for many years feel at his announcement and at this compromise? Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are directly involved in this agreement?

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government are not a party to the agreement. It has been negotiated on the side of the United Kingdom by the Trustees of the National Gallery, but we welcome these arrangements and we think that they form a very good solution of a long standing controversy.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this just gesture has already elicited from both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland expressions of warm appreciation? Does he realise that he will add greatly to the strength, prosperity and happiness of these two islands if he can achieve in economics, politics and defence the same kind of unanimity as he has won in the sphere of art? Will he now address himself to those matters?

The Prime Minister: That is far from the pictures.

Mr. Gaitskell: In welcoming the agreement, may I ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would consider sympathetically any request that might be made from time to time by the Trustees of the National Gallery to purchase other pictures to replace those which will not now be available in the National Gallery, because, of course, they will be shown in Dublin? I mean, of course, similar pictures—French impressionists. In view of the fact that Hugh Lane was one of the great initiators of public collections of modern paintings, would it not be a gracious tribute and gesture to his memory if the Government acted accordingly?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear that question in mind when considering grants for these purposes. I think, however, that the great advantage of this


arrangement is that the pictures are not lost permanently either to one country or the other, or to those who wish to see them, and by moving backwards and forwards over a period of five years they will be, in a sense, available to both countries. That is a great advantage over other solutions which have sometimes been suggested.

Mr. Gaitskell: I fully agree with that, and it is because I hope that the agreement will last not only for twenty years, but for much longer, that I venture to suggest the possibility of grants for purchasing other pictures to replace those which, at any given time during periods of five years at least, will not be available in the National Gallery.

The Prime Minister: I have said that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter. These are dangerous things to dispute about. It is possible that in twenty years' time we may wish that we had bought at cheaper prices other pictures which will then be very fashionable.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER, and TUESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Betting and Gaming Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

WEDNESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of Mr. Speaker Morrison's Retirement Bill; and of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

It is hoped that this business can be obtained at such an hour as will allow sufficient time for a debate on the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Garratt v. Eastmond case.

THURSDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Horticulture Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

FRIDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to allow a free vote on the Second Reading of the Betting and Gaming Bill? Would it not be a suitable occasion for a free vote on both sides of the House? After all, this is not a party issue. A free vote would greatly add to the interest of the proceedings and make the whole situation considerably easier for many hon. Members.

Mr. Butler: We have, naturally, given close consideration to this Measure, but we must regard it as a Government Bill and, therefore, we cannot permit what is technically described as a free vote. I should like to add, however, that it is quite obvious that this Measure is not conceived in political terms and it is also obvious that, if hon. Members have particular views, they will be perfectly entitled to put them. It is in that spirit that I hope we shall approach the matter.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would this not be an opportunity for initiating a little experiment by which the Government, although they are introducing a Government Measure, take the view that it is not one on which defeat or anything of that kind will be regarded as raising a question of confidence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that should the Government be defeated on an occasion like this we on this side would be perfectly prepared to say that we would not regard it in any way as a matter of confidence? Would it not be in accordance with the general feeling of the House for a greater degree of freedom that an experiment of this kind might be initiated by the Government, with the huge majority which is such an advantage to them?

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. May the House have your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the conscience of this House, on the meaning of phrases about hon. Members expressing their views and free votes?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "what is called a free vote". I think that that is a matter which is left to the general knowledge of hon. Members. As to "consciences" and "views", they appear to be words in common use.

Mr. P. Williams: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order interrupted between the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the answer, whatever it might have been, that was to be given to it by the Leader of the House.

Mr. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to repeat his question?

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would be an excellent opportunity for introducing a little experiment into our proceedings by which the Government could introduce a Measure which is a Government Measure, but nevertheless take the view, and state clearly, that this is not a matter they would regard as an issue of confidence, so that there could be a free vote on the Government side as well as on the Opposition side, even though technically it was a Government Measure?

Mr. Butler: Some of us have had some experience of the working of Parliament and I do not doubt that there may be Amendments moved to this Bill in Committee, or on Report or later stages, which the Government might not particularly like, but which they might have to accept. I do not think that it is wise to enter upon a major Government Measure without treating it as a Government Measure. To put it frankly, there may be many technicalities of law and other difficulties in this Bill, on which we have spent a great deal of time, and a chance Amendment might appear to correct it, but might not result in better law. Therefore, let us reserve the power to treat it as a Government Measure.

Mr. P. Williams: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his attention has been drawn to Motion No. 9 on the Order Paper, in the name of about 50 hon. Members, referring in particular to the possibility of United Kingdom citizens residing overseas being able to vote either here in this country at a General Election, or for the Legislative Council of the Colony in which they happen to be residing at the time?

[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to examine the possibility that United Kingdom citizens serving or otherwise temporarily residing overseas be enabled to vote either for this House or for the Legislature of the territory concerned.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is one of a number of things in which there is a degree of dissatisfaction with the working of the Representation of the People Act and that now, perhaps, is a suitable moment, with five years of sound government ahead of us, when a review of the working of this Act could well be undertaken?

Mr. Butler: The Home Office is responsible for putting forward measures for electoral reform. This is a suggestion on which, at first sight, as my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we see certain difficulties. I should like to give the House this undertaking, that we shall look at any suggestions for electoral reform which may come from one side of the House or the other, from one political party or another. We can take a little time over this and, while examining any such proposals, we shall reserve our right to bring forward any constructive proposals in due course.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask a question on the previous question which was raised? Is it not a fact that if, when a Measure is introduced in the House of Commons—and it can only be introduced by the Government except when it is a Private Member's Bill—the right hon. Gentleman will say, "This being a Government Measure, we must, therefore, put the Whips on"? Will that not mean that we shall never have any free discussion in this House? Is it not possible to make a distinction between kinds of Government Measures and to say, "This particular Measure is, we consider, one which the House of Commons should be free to discuss" using the term "freedom" in the accepted sense of the term, thereby providing the House with very much needed refreshment?
Is it not a fact that if the right hon. Gentleman is worried about an Amendment being carried which would produce legal difficulties there will be plenty of stages on the Bill at which that can be corrected, either here or in another


place? If we should fault at any given time we can be put right afterwards. Surely the authority of the Government in the matter is sufficient to persuade the House on a technical matter. Ought we not to start this Parliament with a little more elbow room than we have had before and not go through again the stale performances that we have had recently?

Mr. Butler: I think that the right hon. Member is over-simplifying the situation. I am quite certain that there will be ample opportunity on this Bill for private Members to put forward constructive Amendments and ample opportunities for them to express their points of view. It is in this spirit that we are moving, but to say that there should be a free vote on every aspect of it might, I think, lead to great confusion on what is a technical and difficult Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that on a previous occasion I asked him about his intentions on the Lord High Commissioner (Scotland) Bill? Has that had anything to do with the formation of the Standing Committee by which 20 Government Members and only 15 Opposition Members have been placed on this Committee? In Scotland, there is a majority against the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to deal with this situation the hon. Members for Reading (Mr. Emery), Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) have been introduced to vote down Scottish Members? Is it his intention always to weight these Standing Committees against Scottish Members?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that conceivably can be a question for the right hon. Gentleman, the selection being made by the Committee of Selection on behalf of the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give us guidance and say at what point we are to be able to question the Leader of the House on the constitution of these Committees?

Mr. Speaker: As at present advised, I do not think that it is possible for the hon. Member to put that question to the Leader of the House. It is not within his responsibility.

Mr. Manuel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true to say that, while the Committee of Selection selects hon. Members, we can take it that its action is endorsed by the Government, because, obviously, if that were not so, the selection would not go through?

Mr. Speaker: Endorsement, I understand, is by this House and not by the Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Relating to business, does not the putting down of a Motion of censure on a trumpery police case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—demonstrate the utter incompetence of the Opposition to address themselves to major national issues?

[That this House regrets the failure of the Secretary of State for the Home Department adequately to explain the payment of £300 out of public money in the case of Garratt v. Eastmond in which the alleged misconduct of a Metropolitan Police officer was involved.]

Would it not be a good thing to recognise this fact now by postponing consideration of this absurd Motion of censure sine die?

Mr. Grimond: May I refer back to the question of the Betting and Gaming Bill? The Home Secretary, with his usual felicity, has described it as a Bill which is not being conceived of in political terms, but does not that imply that there is a distinction in his mind between a certain sort of Bill introduced by the Government in the course of legislation, and a Bill which is not in political terms, but one on which conscience can be expressed? Surely, whatever legal difficulties may arise, they could not arise on the question of adoption or total rejection on Second Reading.

Mr. Butler: It sounds very agreeable to say we should have a free vote, but that makes the conduct of a Bill sometimes very difficult and some of us who have had experience of it are quite convinced that the best way to handle this is to continue to treat this matter in the way we suggest and to conduct it in the spirit which both my right hon. Friend and I have described.

Sir P. Agnew: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when a Measure somewhat of the same kind as this was introduced, namely, the Measure dealing with opening cinemas on Sundays, the first Bill which was brought in by the Government was on the basis of a free vote? That Bill failed to reach the Statute Book and the Government, in a subsequent Session, had to take up Parliamentary time by introducing a fresh Bill, which was carried with the assistance of the Whips. Therefore, on this occasion, if the Government desire, as I believe the whole House desires, that betting reforms and modernisation should take place, the only really sensible thing to do is not to waste the time of Parliament, but to treat the Measure as a Government Measure from the outset.

Mr. C. Pannell: Does the Leader of the House understand that there is still a good deal of disappointment in all parts of the House that he has not moved to the consideration of accommodation? Is he aware that some of us expected that probably we could discuss this matter next week? Is he aware that some of his hon. Friends have complained to me that they have neither a desk nor a place for a secretary or any desks for them-selves? If he is to proceed in this rather procrastinating manner, would it not be better to ask the Commissioners of the House to consider the Stokes Committee's Report, which had the support of all hon. Members, including distinguished members of the Front Bench opposite? When does he propose to move in this most urgent matter?

Mr. Butler: I have already had consultations with a great many hon. Members, most of whom have asked me to separate the question of accommodation from that of procedure. That is a wise thing to do. Taking the question of accommodation only, on which the hon. Member is particularly interested, we have had certain disappointments about places near the House which we hoped would be available. I shall certainly consider any proposal for considering the matter and carrying it further. Perhaps, if the hon. Member will have a talk with me, we can see what we can do.

Mr. Jeger: Despite the disdain with which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)

regards the question of the personal liberty of the subject, would the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the question with which the censure Motion deals has aroused public concern all over the country? Would he, therefore, suspend the rule, or make arrangements for its suspension, on Wednesday to allow the Home Secretary adequate time in which to defend himself?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the Home Secretary envisages undue difficulty in defending himself, but he will welcome the opportunity for a fuller statement than has been hitherto possible in the rush period of Question Time. Up to now I do not think that it should be necessary to suspend the rule, in view of the business which precedes that. I will certainly keep in touch with the usual channels, but I think that the arrangements we made should be perfectly fair for a fair expression of opinion, including a further contribution by the hon. Member.

Mr. Peyton: May I go back to the question asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell)? Will my right hon. Friend consider giving Government time for debate of the questions of accommodation and procedure? I really feel that they have been dealt with very superficially in the past. Many of us would welcome another opportunity of discussing them.

Mr. Butler: As is known, I was proposing to consider one particular question of procedure for tabling in the new year, put to me by the Opposition, and also to reconsider the findings of the last Select Committee on Procedure. It would be very valuable for me to have the views of the House to the maximum amount possible. I cannot give a definite date, but, again, I would repeat that I would separate procedure from accommodation, and would take accommodation on a different occasion.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I revert to the question asked by my right hon. Friends about a free vote on the Betting and Gaming Bill? Would the Leader of the House consider one important precedent for what my right hon. Friends have been suggesting to him—the occasion when the Government took a very strong view on one side of a controversial question but, nevertheless, felt


that the question was of such a nature that, while expressing their view quite strongly, they thought it right to leave the ultimate decision to the private judgment of Members, without putting on the Whips on either side?
I refer, of course, to the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill of 1956. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman got into considerable difficulties on that occasion, but the only reason why he got into difficulties was—was it not?—that he made the mistake of undertaking to abide by the result of a free vote in both Houses of Parliament without assuring himself in advance that the two Houses would reach the same conclusion. Therefore, he found himself in considerable difficulty, but if he were to follow that precedent and undertake to abide by the decision of the House of Commons on a free vote, there would be no difficulties of any kind.

Mr. Butler: I did not arrive on the scene at the Home Office until the very last stages of that Measure. Therefore, it was not so much personally that I got into trouble, but that I think we all got somewhat confused. I know that it imposes very heavy responsibility on us now. I really should not like to depart from the line I have taken about the Bill, but I do not expect that any Member will find any difficulty in either expressing views or voting according to conscience, or putting forward constructive ideas. I do not see why any Member should find that the passage of the Bill should inhibit him in any way.

Mr. Albu: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the free and vigorous debate that he has encouraged the House to have on this Bill cannot possibly take place if every vote is a foregone conclusion? Has not the time come when we really should consider whether every vote on every single Measure introduced by the Government has to be treated as a vote of confidence?

Mr. Butler: I think that we had better wait and see how we get on. Perhaps the votes will not all be foregone conclusions on this Bill.

Mr. Chetwynd: Why not have a gamble on it?

Orders of the Day — Mr. SPEAKER MORRISON'S RETIREMENT (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

3.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That the annual sum of four thousand pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the said annuity to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon the Right Honourable William Shepherd Morrison, lately Speaker of the House of Commons, to commence and take effect on the twentieth day of October, nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and to continue during his life, and that if Catherine Allison Morrison, his wife, survives him, the annual sum of one thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds be granted as aforesaid, the said annuity to be settled upon her in the most beneficial manner, to commence and take effect on the day after his death and to continue during her life.
I should like to make a short statement to the House on this Motion, because the Second Reading of the Bill and later stages will be taken next week, and, therefore, I do not anticipate that the Committee will spend much time on this matter today.
Earlier today, the House will have learned with pleasure that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to appoint Mr. William Shepherd Morrison, now Lord Dunrossil, to be Governor-General of Australia. I am sure that all our good wishes go to him in this high office.
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take this opportunity to explain what the effect of this appointment will be on the provisions of the Bill which will be published on Friday, and which we are to debate, as I said, next week. The Bill provides that one-half of Mr. Morrison's pension will be abated while he is holding any office under the Crown at a salary equal to or exceeding the pension. I am advised that the appointment announced earlier today, which is, of course, no responsibility whatever of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom, comes within the scope of this provision. I thought that I would mention that so that when we come to the later stages of this matter hon. Members will have that in mind.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I should like to join with the Leader of the House in extending our good wishes to Mr. Morrison on this important appointment.
This is, of course, a new development. The procedure was recently initated which will lead up to the Bill regarding Mr. Morrison's pension, and I would feel inclined to suggest to the Committee that, in these circumstances, it may be wiser to defer the discussion of this matter, which will, no doubt, arise on the Second Reading of the Bill which, according to the business statement that has just been made, is to be taken next Wednesday.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is a precedent for opposition to the Speaker's pension Bill. It does go rather far back. I think that it might be useful if we were to refer to it at this stage. I find, for example, that on 23rd April, 1895, the then Member for South West Ham, Mr. J. K. Hardie, moved, as an Amendment, that the sum of £4,000 be deleted and that £1,000 be inserted in its place. HANSARD reports that Mr. Keir Hardie observed that it seemed to him that as the House of Commons seemed to have neither the time nor the inclination to provide a system of pensions for the aged workers of the country it should not be called upon to agree to a resolution of this kind.
Mr. Keir Hardie went on to say that he moved the Amendment out of no disrespect to the recent occupant of the Chair, that he cordially endorsed all that was said of him on the occasion of his retirement, but that there were such glaring anomalies between wealth and poverty in the country that it seemed to him that a protest should be made.
4.0 p.m.
I should like to say that, in recalling this, the protest has been made, but I should like to add, also, that although we understand from the Leader of the House that there are not to be two pensions awarded to the former Speaker the one in respect of the Governor-Generalship of Australia and this which we are granting under this Motion—

Mr. H. Hynd: There are two, but one is to be reduced.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to raise that at this stage, but a very important question seems to arise.
We understood that when a Speaker resigned and was given a retirement pension by the House of Commons it meant his disappearance from active participation in public life, and I was extremely surprised to see that Mr. Speaker Morrison, who, we understood, could not continue in the Chair of the House for reasons of ill-health, was to receive an appointment as Governor-General of Australia at £10,000 a year.
I do not wish to go into the details now, as I understand that the matter is to be considered next week, but it seems to me that this has very important implications. Does it mean that a precedent will be created and that in future a Speaker who is elected by the House can look forward to a very substantial salary in some other place when he leaves the Chair? The Leader of the House tells us that the Government have nothing to do with this appointment, but can it be that this appointment has come about absolutely independently of the Government and the House, and without the Government's knowledge?
It seems to me that we must continue the discussion on this matter at a later stage. Does it mean that the Speaker of the House of Commons, when he retires, can become a director of a big industrial concern in the City? Does it mean that, following the precedent of the former Colonial Secretary, he can become a director of Guinness? Does it mean that he can become a director of many other companies, in addition to receiving a substantial pension from the House? Without having had a great deal of time to consider it, I believe that this precedent brings out very unfortunate implications and that it should be very carefully examined before we come to our decision next week.
If we cannot have a satisfactory answer to this question, we should adopt the precedent of the Member for South West Ham, in 1895. The precedent of Keir Hardie's Amendment, for which he could not find a teller, should be followed on this occasion. I do not think that there will be a lack of a teller if the Government have not a more satisfactory explanation to give us.

Mr. Charles Pannell: May I tell the Leader of the House that he should not under-rate the considerable feeling that has been aroused by this matter? I hope that he will take any objections raised today as being concerned with the dignity of the House, the precedence and the honour that we pay to a Speaker and that, as Leader of the House, be will try, as far as possible, to take such steps before Second Reading of the Bill as will obviate the slightest degree of difference and acrimony on the Motion.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to read, in column 549 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 19th February, 1959, the terms in which Mr. Speaker Morrison resigned. I think that we can reasonably envisage from them that here was a man of 66, with failing hearing, who was advised by medical advisers that he would be unwise to take on the work of another Parliament. Therefore, if the Government are exonerated from this, by implication we must criticise ex-Speaker Morrison for landing himself in this difficulty when he knew full well from all precedents that he could expect the mark of Royal favour since accorded to him, together with a pension of £4,000 a year. Indeed, it goes further this time. We are providing for Mrs. Morrison in the event of widowhood.
I beg the Leader of the House to believe that there is a good deal of feeling manifested about this sort of thing. We all desire the House of Commons to gather round unitedly to do honour to one who has been the First Commoner. It does not do to talk about a half-pension. We are not satisfied. My view, and I will state it now rather than next week, is that if ex-Speaker Morrison takes this appointment the pension should go into cold storage until he ceases to hold the office of Governor-General of Australia. That seems to me the only honourable and dignified thing to do.
All the precedents are that when Mr. Speaker is given a pension of £4,000 a year it is given to him because he steps down from public life. We often speak about the earnings rule for humbler people in the community. I am not one of those who always prates about the differences between the rich and the poor, but this will be looked upon in a

most odious light outside the House and it will be difficult to persuade many people that the Government are not privy to this sort of thing.
There were Members who lost their seats in the last General Election. They may have been Members from this side of the Committee and they could be gentlemen from the benches opposite, Members who served the House for a considerable period, for fourteen or fifteen years and sometimes longer, who are denied under law even the right to claim unemployment pay, because they are self-employed persons. We have even wrapped it up into the Statute that a Member of Parliament, on losing his seat, would not be in a position to claim unemployment pay. Even worse than that, there is a provision that he can earn no right to stamps at all while out of work. He has to make that contribution.
There is an element of chance when one is appointed Speaker. We do a person honour in this form of selection, but nobody denies that there are other Members of Parliament who, according to their light, serve the House and the country with as much sincerity, industry and single-mindedness as even an ex-Speaker. And we cannot draw this sort of line between one who is lifted to the Chair and other people who have left our service and who literally have to be rescued in this sort of circumstance. The Government have not faced up to the conclusion of the Select Committee on Members' Expenses on the provision of even £500 a year for Members of Parliament who lose their seats.
The Leader of the House has admitted that there have been cases of dire distress on his side of the Committee—Members who have spent a lifetime of service to the State in the House and are thrown on one side and have to be dependent on one charity or another. I have had to pay tribute to the generosity of hon. Members opposite in some cases I have known concerned with Members on this side of the Committee.
The Speaker of the House of Commons is but a Member of the House of Commons. We insist that he faces the electorate and he is one of us to the end and we must look on all Members of the House in equity. This business outrages all principle of equity.
Mr. Speaker Morrison, in accepting this appointment, seems to us to a degree to outrage taste and a conception which I bring to his high office in accepting this post in this form. I think that I speak for all my colleagues on this side of the Committee when I say that the least we would accept is that not half but the whole of the pension should go into cold storage until such time as he retires again into private life.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I, too, rise to oppose the Motion. I think that I can say without fear of contradiction from my hon. Friends that I must be in good company if, as ray hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has mentioned, so many years ago James Keir Hardie representing South West Ham also rose to oppose the original introduction of this pension.
I represent West Ham, North and I am sure that Keir Hardie then spoke not only on behalf of the people of West Ham, but for all the people of the country. I am sure that if I oppose the Motion today my constituents and my political party will support me up to the hilt. Why? Because they say that the Government have said that a man who has given forty years of his life to sweating in a pit or in the workship should have only a few shillings a week pension. If he wants any more, he was told during the last election that he must go to the National Assistance Board.
I am not suggesting for a moment that this should be the position in this case. If a man has served the House well, as undoubtedly the former Speaker did for a period of eight years, he should receive an adequate salary during that period, as I think he did, and should receive an adequate pension. I will go further and say that I think every man in the country, whether he be a miner, a bricklayer, a carpenter or a Member of Parliament, should receive an adequate pension. But I do not see why the former Speaker should receive £4,000 a year pension "in the most beneficial manner." I am not a lawyer, but that might well mean without losing too much in taxation. Certainly, £4,000 a year is as much as many Ministers

of the Crown receive. It is two or three times what a Member of Parliament receives, even excluding the expenses he has to meet.
By all means let the former Speaker have an adequate pension, but I suggest that £4,000 is too much and that it is wrong in principle to introduce the question of a pension for his wife. Why? In every pension scheme of which I know, throughout the State service, the Civil Service, the local authority service, a prospective recipient is allowed to allot part of his pension to be paid to his wife if he dies before receiving it. I see no reason why the former Speaker should not adopt the usual practice and have his proposed pension of £4,000 reduced by the amount he may wish to allot to his wife.
The words "in the most beneficial manner" appear again in the Motion in relation to the annuity of £1,333. Again, does this mean it will be tax-free, or that there will be a tax arrangement? With great respect to the great lady that Mrs. Morrison is, one whom we all admire, I do not think that she has rendered all that amount of service to the House. It is true that she attended our debates frequently, and that we were pleased to see her, but this proposal means that she will draw by way of annuity more than a Member of Parliament receives for his job, if we take into account the expenses he must incur in carrying it out.
I suggest that the proposal is wrong in view of the salary which the former Speaker will receive for his new appointment. Even if, as is suggested, he receives only £2,000 of his pension, he will be receiving altogether £12,000 a year, £2,000 of which I assume will be "in the most beneficial manner". Now the old-age pensioner in my constituency, when he wants to work, and work very hard, for a few shillings a week, must have that deducted from his pension, and he is allowed to earn only a very small amount. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have told us that this is wrong.
I hope, therefore, that we shall most vigorously oppose the suggestion of an allotment by the State, or what might be termed an additional pension, for the wife of a former Speaker, whoever he may be, because there is nothing personal in this. I am against it on principle.
4.15 p.m.
If, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the House could say to me that any man who has given eight years' solid service conscientiously to his employer shall receive a pension equivalent to what he was drawing previously, that his wife shall draw about a quarter of it, and that the Government will introduce a national superannuation Bill on that basis, I would agree with it, because it would affect the miner, the bricklayer and the carpenter, the Member of Parliament and any former Speaker. But unless something is done for pensioners in general, then this Motion is not right.
Also, I want to cross the t's and dot the i's of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). Why is it that a Member of Parliament can work very hard in this House for twenty or thirty years—and, in the case of one man I know, can become a Minister—and find that when he leaves it through no fault of his own, probably because of boundary redistribution, because of his age he is unable to get a job, whether a governorship, or some other sinecure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am saying this frankly, and it is a statement of fact.
As my hon. Friend said, such a man cannot even draw unemployment pay. He cannot get a private employer to give him an appointment and, naturally, the boards of the nationalised industries say that, as he is getting near the age of 60, he cannot expect to come in and jump over others. So the poor chap is left high and dry. Why should not such a man have a pension? I am not sug gesting that he should be given £4,000 a year, or a pension equal to the salary he was getting while he was a Member of the House, but the Government are being unfair, they are being very biased. They treat the ordinary Member of Parliament with contempt in the matter of salaries, accommodation, facilities—

The Chairman: Order, order. The hon. Member is getting very far away from the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I was trying to point out, Sir Gordon, why I feel that the Motion should be opposed. I was trying to explain that I thought the Motion was unfairly drawn. I was trying to point out that I thought it was very biased, inasmuch as the Government are doing

something for two people while neglecting all the rest of the people of the country and, in particular, Members of Parliament, who are in a position similar to that of the former Speaker, namely, that they gave loyal service to the House, were loyal Members of Parliament, and, in some cases, were Ministers of the Crown.
I say with respect that the former Member for Lewisham, South gave equally good service to this House and to the country for many years, yet he does not get a pension of £4,000 a year. If he did, that would be fair enough, because then the Government would be treating the two Morrisons alike. Both have given good service to the country, one for eight years, the other for twenty or thirty years. This Motion shows bias in favour of two against the majority of Members of the House. Unless, therefore, the Leader of the House can say that he will look at the position again, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I will do all we can to have a Division, if not today, on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. R. A. Butler: With the leave of the Committee, may I say that the view of the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The Bill is to be published tomorrow, and this is an unusual procedure of having the Committee stage on receiving Her Majesty's Gracious Message even before we see the Bill or before we have the Second Reading. I am sure that we should all be perfectly satisfied if the points of view which have been made so strenuously were put and considered on Second Reading. Of course, I will undertake to consider what has been said already.
The only other observation that I would make before Second Reading, and before hon. Members see the Bill, is that the Bill is drawn according to precedent with the abatement provision originally in the Bill. It has not been brought in for the special purpose of the news we saw today, coming from Her Majesty's appointment. It emanates, as is known, from sources other than Her Majesty's Government, and is a subject which I think it was a good thing the House is aware of before we proceed further with any consideration of the Measure. I think that we should be wise to consider this discussion on Second Reading.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), not for the first time, reflects the serious opinion of a very large number of Members on this side of the Committee, and should not be ignored.
May I also express my regret that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) produced a Report from a Committee which would have obviated a lot of the discussion this afternoon if it had been implemented, it was not adopted. Although it was carried by a free vote of the House, it was not implemented by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was a distinguished member. That may be one of the reasons for his being cynical about free votes.

Mr. H. Hynd: I appreciate very much what the Leader of the House has said about leaving this discussion until the Second Reading of the Bill, because I personally would be very embarrassed indeed in having to vote against a Bill on a subject like this connected with a gentleman whom we all respect.
I wonder whether it is not a good thing that this discussion should have taken place today, and whether it would not be possible for the Leader of the House perhaps to suggest to the former Speaker that he himself might voluntarily relinquish the other half of the pension, or put it in cold storage. After all, we are to accept the principle of the pension. It will be there, and he will be able to get it when he needs it, when he ceases to be Governor-General of Australia.
I am certain that the question of £2,000 a year is neither here nor there to the former Speaker in the post that he is to occupy. I suggest, therefore, that it would save the House a great deal of embarrassment if the Bill were not presented at present. I am quite sure that it is within the possibilities of the diplomacy of the Leader of the House to do something along these lines.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I should like to support the plea put forward to the Leader of the House either to withdraw the Motion for the time being, or to postpone consideration of the forthcoming Bill until a date later

than next week. It is quite obvious to all of us that the Government have also been taken by surprise as a result of the development that has taken place today.
I think that it would be in the public interest, and would obviate a certain amount of embarrassment which we all want to avoid, if the Government were to hold their hand for a short time until the position becomes a little more clarified. The whole idea of making a pension of £4,000 a year to former Speakers was to ensure that they should spend the rest of their lives in an independent and dignified way, without having to rely upon other employment. That is why we also give not unsubstantial pensions to High Court Judges and former Lord Chancellors, because it would go against the grain—would it not?—to see distinguished gentlemen of this kind, or even ex-Prime Ministers, having to rely upon City appointments, or even governor-generaliships, for the purpose of maintaining a reasonable standard of living in the final years of their distinguished lives.
I hope that in these circumstances the Leader of the House will not put us in the embarrassing position in which he has certainly placed the Committee, but will withdraw the Motion, or at least give an undertaking that the Bill will not come before the House as early as he has said it will—on Wednesday of next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the annual sum of four thousand pounds be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the said annuity to be settled in the most beneficial manner upon the Right Honourable William Shepherd Morrison, lately Speaker of the House of Commons, to commence and take effect on the twentieth day of October nineteen hundred and fifty-nine, and to continue during his life, and that if Catherine Allison Morrison, his wife, survives him, the annual sum of one thousand three hundred and thirty-three pounds be granted as aforesaid, the said annuity to be settled upon her in the most beneficial manner, to commence and take effect on the day after his death and to continue during her life.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMY ACT (CONTINUATION)

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move,
That the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Gentleman, it might be for the convenience of the House if I followed my predecessor's precedent and said just a word or two about the rules of order relating to this debate on the Army Act (Continuation) Order and the Air Force Act (Continuation) Order.
The House will remember that last year, before a similar Motion to continue the Army Act was moved, my predecessor was requested to rule on the scope of the debate. In reply, Mr. Speaker Morrison repeated the gist of a Ruling he had given the previous year, stating that
Only matters contained in the Act which it is proposed to continue can be discussed"—
and that if hon. Members—
treated the Army Act, 1955, as if it were a Bill and made a speech appropriate to the debate on the Third Reading of the Bill …they would be in order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November. 1958; Vol. 594, c, 1120.]
If hon. Members went on and made suggestions for Amendments, that would be out of order. My predecessor, when further questioned on his Ruling, ruled out of order discussion on operational matters, and laid it down that the words "terms and conditions of service" must be construed in the sense in which they are used in the Act.
Perhaps, as some hon. Members did not hear that, I must point out that there are pitfalls for the unwary, because when the Statute talks about "terms and conditions", all it means is the actual duration in point of time of the terms of enlistment.
I thought that it might be for the assistance of the House if I said these few words about the Order before we begin the debate.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for reminding us about the rules of order.
The existing Army Act came into force on 1st January, 1955, and this is the third occasion on which the House

has been invited to approve this Motion. Under Section 226 of the Act, the House will again be invited to pass a similar Motion for the continuance of the Act next year, and then, before 1st January, 1962, when the Act will have been in operation for five years, Members will have the opportunity, if they so desire, to put forward Amendments to the existing Act or agree to a revised Act which will come into force on that date; that is to say, 1st January, 1962.
In the meantime, as you have just pointed out in your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, the rules of order for this debate are narrow. There are, in fact, apart from the issue of discipline itself, not many matters of prime importance to the Army which can be said to arise directly from the existence of the Army Act, but I think I can, within your rules of order about the terms of service, give some facts about recruiting which may interest the House.
So long as a discussion of recruiting, albeit limited to terms of service, is within the rules of order, with all the importance that must be attached to the subject at the present time, I believe that the House will find any Army debate to be worth while. Indeed, from my point of view the relation of the recruiting problem to our other preoccupations is not unlike the rôle of Hamlet as he is to his supporting cast.
In its Report on recruiting, published just over a year ago, the Grigg Committee said that discipline in the Services was less of a problem than it had imagined it to be. So far as discipline is referred to in the narrow context of breaches of the law, this view is certainly confirmed by the experience that we have had in three years' working of the new Army Act. Discipline generally is good, and there has been a slight reduction in the proportion of court-martial convictions in the twelve months ended this September.
With regard to the justice dispensed at courts-martial, hon. Members will be interested in the work which has fallen to the Courts-Martial Appeal Court since it came into existence in 1952. From about 35,000 counts-martial in the last seven years, 191 appeals have been considered by the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, and of these four have been successful. The Army Act confers heavy


powers of punishment in certain circumstances, and it is right that its operation should be' jealously watched, but on the basis of these figures I do not think that anyone can be in any doubt of the high standard of the administration of justice by courts-martial.
Courts-martial, of course, represent only one aspect of the Army's discipline, bearing the same relationship as cases which go before a judge in the civil courts do to the general behaviour of the civil population. It is only a very small proportion of soldiers, happily, who are likely to face a court-martial at any time during their military career.
To my mind, a much more important aspect of Army discipline is the way in which it bears from day to day on the great majority of soldiers who live ordinary, law-abiding military lives. Here again, the Grigg Committee had something to say, and it pointed out how much depends on the cult of common sense and the wisdom of commanding officers. This aspect of man management is not one that can be inculcated by detailed instructions going out from the Army Council. It can be done rather by the careful training of officers and non-commissioned officers and the use of extreme care in the selection of commanding officers.
This we try to achieve, but there is an area outside the discretion of the commanding officer, which does not require legislative amendments to the Act, where the Army Council can help, and I should like to tell the House of some changes which we are about to introduce in this respect.
One criticism of the Army disciplinary code hitherto, and one which has some foundation, has been that commanding officers have not been able to employ a system of probation for first offenders comparable to that which magistrates can use in the civil courts. We propose to remedy this by a simple administrative change in the rules for the award of the mildest of all military punishment, that of admonition. In future, when a soldier is admonished by his commanding officer, a record of that fact will be attached to his conduct sheet for three months before being destroyed. So the previous offence will be taken into account if, within that period, the

soldier is guilty of another offence. If he does not commit another offence, he will have a clean sheet again, provided that his sheet was clean to begin with.
In the second place, we have decided that confinement to barracks in the present day and age is more of an irritant than a corrective; that is, the punishment as we know it, with all that it entails. The traditional system, as perhaps many of us know to our cost, is for the soldier to be required to stay permanently in barracks, to answer his name at uncertain periods of the day and to be employed on the more unpleasant fatigues as much as possible. Now we are to replace "confined to barracks" by a new punishment to be known as "restriction of privileges." Under this restriction the soldier will forfeit his permanent pass and, with it, the right to wear civilian clothes. Although he will still be liable for fatigues, he will have to answer his name in barracks only at 10 o'clock in the evening and he will have to remain in barracks after that time.
In addition, successive awards of restriction of privileges will run concurrently and not consecutively, and the aggregate of successive awards will not exceed 28 days compared with the 42 days for which successive awards of C.B. can run at present. I am of the firm opinion that this will be an improvement on the old punishment of "confined to barracks".
Part I of the Act, comprising Sections 1 to 23, deals with the enlistment and terms of service of other ranks, and I think that it presents me with an opportunity to tell the House something of the progress in the last year. It is the terms of enlistment themselves which, with the possible exception of pay, have more to do with the recruiting of sufficient numbers of men for the Army than any other single thing. Ever since the Defence White Paper of 1957 was published, the question which has dwarfed all others is what the strength of the Army will be when at the end of 1962 the last National Service man has left the Army.
I can still give a confident answer to that question. I believe that the beginning of 1963—I base my thought on the evidence that we have had now over two years of the new terms of service—will find us with an Army with a strength of at least 165,000 all ranks, which was the


target set in 1957, and I also believe that we shall in the majority of arms have exceeded the target and be on the way to reaching the higher ceiling of about 180,000 to which the Army was authorised to recruit early this year.
There is one particular difficulty in this respect in forecasting which cannot yet be resolved, and that is that we have yet to see to what extent as the best recruiting arms, the most popular recruiting arms, get filled up, intending recruits will be prepared to be persuaded to join instead other arms which have not reached their ceiling. It is true that Section 3 of the Act gives power to transfer men compulsorily between corps, but I must say that I can think of nothing more conducive to an unhappy Army and the collapse of regular recruitment than the application of these powers in peacetime; and we certainly have no intention of invoking them. The problem of persuading the recruit to join an arm other than that of his first choice is only just beginning to arise now when some arms are filling up, and on our success or failure to do so depends the speed with which we can fill the gap between our old target of 165,000 and our new one of 180,000.
Section 5 of the Act authorises the enlistment of men on 22-year engagements for initial engagements of three, six or nine years, and in this connection the House may be interested in a significant trend which is taking place this year. In November, 1957, six years replaced three years as the normal minimum engagement. In 1958, which was a spectacular recruiting year, there was a rush of six-year recruits. In the first nine months of 1959, six-year recruits are 18 per cent. down on the 1958 figure, but against that there has been a 33 per cent. increase in the number of men taking on an initial engagement of nine years.
As a result, although in the numbers of adult recruits we are 11 per cent. down on the 1958 figure, in terms of man-years recruited we are only 3 per cent. down. In view of all the aids to recruitment which we had in 1958, such as the pay review in the spring, and the Report of the Grigg Committee later—which produced an increase in the number of man-years recruited of no less than 70 per cent. in 1958. as compared with 1957—

I think that we can be well satisfied that in 1959 we are only 3 per cent. down on the 1958 figure. Next year, 1960. is the year for the biennial pay review, and pay review years have hitherto been good recruiting years.
The House has now got accustomed to talking of man-years when it discusses these matters. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has always been a great exponent of this, and this must be the first debate on Army matters which he has not attended for many years. We all regret that illness keeps him away, and I hope that he will soon be quite recovered.
The figures for adult recruitment are fairly satisfactory, but what causes us more pleasure are the figures for enlistment of boys on the terms provided for in Section 4 of the Act. In their importance to the Army of the future the new junior leader units and apprentices' schools rank with Sandhurst. There is nothing more important to an all-Regular Army than to have a strong element of soldiers who have come up from boy service to adult service. We rely on these units for the majority of warrant officers, senior non-commissioned officers and skilled technicians. For the boy who passes through them, the way to commissioned rank is open.
The numbers coming forward have been such that we had to open a new junior leaders' unit at Tonfanau in the summer, and a fourth apprentices' school is to be opened in Carlisle in January, despite the fact that we have raised our selection standard. We are gaining both in quantity and in quality. Next spring there will be about 4,000 boys in the junior leaders' units—over twice as many as in 1957—and there will be 3,000 in the apprentices' schools. These places are the seedbed of the Regular Army of the future, and nothing in the general picture is more encouraging than their present flourishing state.
I should have liked to go on to say something about other aspects of Army affairs, but I fear that if I were to do so I should be transgressing the rules of order. Further matters must await the Estimates debate in the spring, but. in passing, I would mention that although we have a long way to go


before we can provide modern accommodation for our troops in all theatres, with married quarters to match them, the building programme is going well, and I think that I can assure the House that the power given to me under Section 174 of the Act, to bring billeting regulations into force, is unlikely to be used during the coming year.
I ask the House to agree to the continuance of the Army Act for the year 1960.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: As the Minister has just said, we are again considering the new procedure of the Army Act, which supersedes that historic procedure which went on over the centuries and which dated from the days when the British people had a profound distrust of the standing Army. That distrust is now entirely a thing of the past. and the new procedure much better reflects our present attitudes.
Under Mr. Speaker's Ruling the debate is a narrow one, and we cannot enlarge upon many of the questions which we should like to raise, but we shall get an opportunity to do that in the debate on the Army Estimates next year. There are really only two subjects to concern us in this debate, both of which the Secretary of State has touched upon, namely, discipline and recruiting. They are very interesting subjects, which are profoundly important to the Army.
We shall have to go into the question of discipline a good deal more deeply in the quinquennial review which will come along in two years' time, and I hope that we will look at the detailed working of certain Sections of the new Army Act to see if we can still further improve on them. But that is not our job this year, and it cannot be.
I am glad to hear from the Secretary of State that, judging by the number of offences committed, discipline has been good. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Appeal Court. I am always interested in that subject, as I had the honour to pilot through the House the Bill setting it up. Although in only four cases has a sentence been reversed, the existence of the court has abundantly proved its worth. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees, and

I am also sure that it is a comfort to him that he has this court, because formerly the Secretary of State had an uncomfortable responsibility, to say the least, in that there was no Appeal Court which could consider the sentences and decisions of military tribunals.
The only point I want to raise in connection with discipline is that which we discussed last spring, namely, the question of the old Army prison at Shepton Mallet. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what will happen about that. I realise that the prison is very soon passing out of Army hands, and I believe that the arrangement is that long-term prisoners will be accommodated in civil prisons. I am not very happy about that, because of the great overcrowding in civil prisons. It would certainly be a serious matter for the Army if accommodation were not adequate for its long-term prisoners. I should like to know what are the prospects.
I now turn to the two changes which the Secretary of State has announced, which I am sure my hon. Friends very much welcome. It seems a very sensible idea to institute a procedure analogous to the system of probation in civil courts. Under the new procedure admonition becomes a temporary offence, for three months, during which period the man is, in effect, on probation. That seems an excellent arrangement. The other change is even more welcome. It is good to know that confinement to barracks is a thing of the past. The substitution of a restriction of privileges is more logical, milder, and thoroughly sensible. I do not pretend fully to have grasped the exact nature of the new arrangement from what the right hon. Gentleman said, but as an old university student it would seem to me to be very much like being "gated". I have been "gated" myself when a student, and I remember how very inconvenient it was. But it is certainly much preferable to being confined to barracks, in the old sense. That is a small but very welcome change.
The subject of recruiting, dealt with by the Secretary of State, is exceedingly interesting and, as he said, the most vital question of all to the Service today. I think there is no doubt that we are still within Mr. Speaker's Ruling because the adequacy of recruiting today turns on


the terms of service in the strict sense of the duration of Service and the degree of long-service men that we are getting.
The Secretary of State is, on the whole, on sound ground when he points out that the figures for this year, which I studied before this debate, although slightly disappointing and alarming when looked at at first sight, are not by any means so disappointing and alarming when analysed and looked at in the proportion of longer service men compared with shorter service men. There is a net fall in man-years even there. As the Secretary of State said, it is only one of 3 per cent., and considering the extraordinary year with which we are comparing it, when the recruiting reckoned in man-years went up by no less than 70 per cent., I would be unduly alarmist if I charged him with complacency in not feeling that there was anything very grave about the fall of 3 per cent. this year.
It is a remarkable fact that some of us, although not all of us, on this side of the House ventured to predict that if we got the pay and conditions of service roughly into line with the pay and conditions in the civilian world, and into something which the men felt to be in line, the task of recruiting an all-Regular Army, upon which the Government are engaged, would be possible. So it has undoubtedly turned out. The Secretary of State is almost certainly justified in his confidence of getting 165,000, and it looks as if he will get the higher figure of approximately 180,000 which he has now set himself and which, I think, is none too large for the Army and all its requirements.
There is the further point, which he made, of whether he will get the right kind of man in the right place—in the right arms and the right branches of the Service. That is a much more difficult question. Experience, as I think he indicated, will have to decide it. I agree with him that compulsion is really unthinkable, because it would defeat its own ends, and that we must try persuasion.
I suppose that if there are some branches of the Service which are obstinately unpopular compared with others, differential inducements of some sort will be necessary. There, again, I see obvious difficulties. We must recruit

a balanced Army, which is probably the most difficult question he will face in the immediate future. At any rate, it is a good thing that it is the teeth arms that are popular and the tail arms that are not. We should certainly deplore it if it were the other way round. Nevertheless, in the modern Army, the tail branches are in fact just as important. The teeth arms cannot operate without them. Therefore, it does not relieve his problem very much. It is one on which I think we cannot congratulate ourselves on having solved yet, and it is one that he will have to face.
The Secretary of State spoke about the excellent recruiting to the boys' institutions. Of course, the figures do not tell one so much because it is an uneven entry, but they seem to be fairly satisfactory. He spoke of the way to commissioned rank being open to these boys. I do not know whether we can have from the Minister figures as to the number of these boys who are getting commissions as they come up to the age group in which this arises and later. I hope that it is sufficiently open. I realise that it is open. No one is suggesting that it is not and that there are not some commissions from this source, but I hope that it is open in the sense also that opportunities to reach the necessary educational standard for commission are fully open.
I should have thought that there was very valuable material there for officers, who, after all, are needed. We cannot go into the detailed figures today, but I think that it is on the side of the officer corps rather than the other ranks that he should feel some anxiety at the moment in recruiting, so every source for that is of importance.
This is all that I can say within the compass of the debate, but we on this side who took a prominent, perhaps even a marked part, in the institution of this new procedure of the Army Act, which came out of a fairly stormy Parliamentary exchange, are certainly rather glad to see that the new procedure is justifying itself.

4.57 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I want to say a few words and ask one or two questions on a point which, I hope, is in order under the narrow rules of this debate. I refer to the administration of those parts of the disciplinary code which relate to


the public expression of opinion on professional matters by serving personnel in the three Services and particularly by senior officers.
I apologise to my right hon. Friend for not having given him notice that I wanted to raise this matter, but I was inspired to do so only when I read a leading article in today's Times.
Under the Act, very wide powers are given to the three Service Ministers and their Departments to prohibit any form of public discussion by serving personnel on matters of politics or of policy. I do not think that anyone would question the correctness of the general interpretation which is placed on these regulations, or question that the powers given under the Act are justified and wise. At the same time, I would not for a moment suggest that quite the same rules apply to the principal professional advisers in the Service Departments and the principal commanders-in-chief as have to be applied to the generality. Obviously, very high officers are public figures and cannot retire behind the cloak of anonymity as civil servants can, and it is, I suggest, in the interest of discipline and of the morale of the Services that their views should be known and understood by their subordinates. From the point of view of the public at large, the public are entitled to believe that the officers at the top and the principal advisers should at any rate be in general agreement with the policy of the Government for the time being. If this were not so, I think it is fair to say that the public would expect them to resign and to give the reasons.
I put it to my right hon. Friend and to the Parliamentary Secretary, who I imagine will reply, that all these exceptions surely apply only to officers who may have to fight a battle. In administering this part of the Army discipline, does my right hon. Friend draw distinctions from the nature of the appointment? We have had a recent case which has attracted a lot of attention. According to the Press, this officer is employed in an administrative capacity. I should like to ask whether it is necessary for special latitude to be given in such cases for officers to indulge in what are very highly controversial discussions in public.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. I am sorry to interrupt

the hon. and gallant Member, but I am concerned all the time whether he is in order. It would help me if he could state the Section of the Act to which he is referring when he talks about these regulations.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I am bound to confess that I cannot quote the Section offhand, but the Act empowers, and I think requires, the Army Council in this case to make regulations for the proper conduct and discipline of the Services. It has always been accepted that one of the rules is that officers of fighting services do not indulge in politics. I do not think that is seriously open to question.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Possibly I may be of assistance in this matter. I think that the question is covered by Queen's Regulations. Would not that be part of the Army Act itself and therefore in order for discussion in such a debate as this?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I imagine that if it is covered by Queen's Regulations it would be under the Army Act.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: It is certainly covered by Queen's Regulations. I thought you were asking which Section of the Act deals with these regulations, and I was afraid that I could not answer offhand. There is no doubt that it is a disciplinary matter, and I submit that it is in order.
I do not raise it in a very critical spirit, but there has been a certain amount of public anxiety recently about these excursions into political and policy matters. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what general principles are followed before permission is given for public statements by senior officers on controversial matters of policy and politics.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I should like to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes-Hallett). I wanted to refer to the same subject. This is a question of discipline, and discipline is provided for in the Army Act. I forget which Section is involved, but there is no doubt that the Army Act covers discipline of the Army. Whether it be a general officer


or a much more subordinate officer or, for that matter, an other rank, they are all limited in what they can say in public on various matters. The special reference to that, I think, is in Queen's Regulations.

Mr. Soames: On a point of order. I am not attempting to say whether this is in order or not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but in view of what you said a few moments ago, I must point out that Queen's Regulations are not related to the Army Act. They are part of the Prerogative.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry. I was misinformed on that point. We have to see whether what we are debating comes within the Army Act.

Mr. Bellenger: The Army Act concerns itself with discipline, and it might be a question of discipline if an officer or an other rank made statements in public contrary to the policy of his commanding officer or his superiors. Indeed, he might be subject to court-martial on occasions. I do not know whether you were in the House at the time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but just before the war the present Minister of Aviation made a statement and the Secretary of State for War at that time endeavoured to have him court-martialled because it was a statement about military policy. In the case of the general officer who gave a lecture which was mentioned in Questions yesterday, we learn from the leading article of The Times this morning that the War Office itself cleared that lecture before it was given. I want to ask the Secretary of State, is that true? Did he have cognisance of what this officer intended to say?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise under the Army Act.

Mr. Bellenger: It leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of many more humble members of the Army who on occasion have done something contrary to discipline and—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be so, but it is not within the scope of this debate.

Mr. Bellenger: I am bound to submit to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I should have thought that the whole

question of discipline could be discussed on this occasion. That is what the Army Act is for. I believe that a breach of discipline has been caused and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should give the House much more information than he has given so far and not hide behind some technical defect this afternoon. If it is not possible to discuss this matter this afternoon, I hope that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman will give the House more information than we have at the moment.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I apologise to my right hon. Friend that I was not here the whole time he was speaking, owing to other duties. I wish to ask a question which I have asked before without obtaining very much of an answer.
How far is it the Government's policy to allow arms which are able to recruit more officers and men to go ahead and do so? Is it intended that the increase from 165,000 to 180,000 will be obtained by an increase in what one might call the popular arms, or is it the Government's policy that a rigid balance should be maintained between different types of unit? In other words, if a popular unit is able to increase its manpower, will it be prevented from doing so? I have in mind, in particular, the recruitment to the cavalry and armoured forces, which has been cut down recently, with the result that many old and famous regiments have lost their identity. That process is continuing. I have the impression that it would be easily within the recruiting possibilities in this country for it not to be necessary to disband these ancient regiments. I believe that would be a very good thing because if my information is correct—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member is not in order.

Mr. Kershaw: I am sorry for getting out of order; it is difficult to stick to the general and not sometimes to particularise in order to illustrate one's meaning.
What is the recruiting policy? Will there be a possibility in future of recruiting into the popular units being allowed greatly to increase, or is the recruitment policy rigidly to adhere to a balanced


force as seen in the War Office? I should like an answer with particular reference to the armoured units.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: In view of your series of Rulings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that I shall have trouble in keeping in order. I have three cards up my sleeve, and I will try them all. In the earlier part of his speech the Minister referred to discipline, and I hope to carry both you and him with me in suggesting that discipline and morale are directly related and that therefore questions affecting morale are in order.

The Deputy-Speaker: Morale is not in order in this debate.

Mr. Snow: That being the case, may I put it in a slightly different way? If there are factors affecting discipline in the Army at present which come within the ambit of the debate, I suggest that the Minister looks at the hardship which is sometimes experienced by married soldiers and their wives where unnecessarily short notice postings are put into effect. Some months ago I drew to the Minister's attention a case which I investigated at Whittingdon Barracks in my constituency where a soldier had been brought home from Cyprus to attend a specialist course so that on his discharge he might be qualified to follow a civilian job. Do I carry you so far, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

The Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not in order on this point.

Mr. Snow: Very well. I will now produce one of my other cards and try to raise that matter on another occasion.
My next point concerns housing.

The Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps I can save the hon. Member time by warning him in advance that housing is out of order.

Mr. Snow: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is the housing of soldiers in so far as it affects discipline out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Housing is out of order. Discipline is in order.

Mr. Snow: Precisely. I am trying to suggest that when a soldier on discharge is confronted with an

impossible housing situation for his family because he has no territorial or local claim on a local authority the discipline of the Army is thereby affected.

The Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that cannot be in order on this limited subject.

Mr. Snow: I will therefore come to my third card. In the course of producing an efficient Army the Minister will, I hope, agree that it is important to try to maintain a general standard of instruction which will appeal to the man temporarily taken away from civilian life and put into the Army. A great deal more attention should be paid to understanding civilian psychology when attempting to secure efficient military training of individuals. Although there must be different forms of instruction to deal with the different arms, there is a common denominator by which there could be put into effect a much better understanding of the civilian psychology of these men who are recruited, many of them against their will, into the Armed Forces.
Having said that and in view of your Rulings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I fear that I must resume my seat.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Soames: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I with the leave of the House mention one point? I do so only because the subject was raised and talked about at some length by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellinger). I hope that I may be permitted to do so. It must have been marginally within order, for both those hon. Members talked for some time about the individual speech which was made recently at the R.U.S.I. by Lieut.-General Cowley.
It is a rule within the War Office that, if a senior officer is to make a public pronouncement, he should discuss it with me before so doing. To judge each particular speech or lecture on its merits, I take into account its content, the type of audience to which it is being delivered, the degree of publicity and the like. This was done in this case by General Cowley. I judge each case on its individual merits. The general began


by saying that it was an expression of his personal views. It was put forward to promote discussion in the Royal United Service Institution, which is a quasi-professional body and, as such, I sanctioned that the lecture should be given. That does not mean in any way, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, that it represented the official policy of Her Majesty's Government. It did not need to do that That is represented by Ministers.
As my right hon. Friend also told the House yesterday, from now on when it comes to officers making speeches about defence policy in general over the broad field of defence policy, as opposed to matters concerned merely with the individual service from which the officer comes, those speeches will not only be cleared by the Minister responsible for the Department, but also will be sent over to the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Strachey: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be a great loss to the country if these rules were interpreted too rigidly? Whatever we may think of the speech made by Lieut.-General Cowley, it was an extremely interesting speech. I, for one,—I think that most of my hon. Friends and, I dare say, most hon. Members opposite will agree—think that it would have been a very great pity if the rules had been interpreted so strictly that such a speech could not be made. I cannot help feeling that, whether we agree with the general or not, he has started a controversy which may be of real value to the country.

Mr. Bellenger: Will this disciplinary procedure be applied to general officers only, or will it apply to all officers and, for that matter, other ranks? Will any officer or other rank in possession of certain important information be able to submit his manuscript to the right hon. Gentleman or, as the case may be, to the Minister of Defence, as we heard yesterday, and then deliver a lecture, not necessarily to the R.U.S.I.?

Mr. Soames: It is a matter of degree, emphasis and common sense. It is up to the Minister responsible for each Department to act. Each case has to be judged on its merits at the time.

Mr. Ede: What happens if a general, or a private in the

wet canteen, conducting a military discussion with his pals emphasises in every sentence that what he is saying is the view of the Ministry, so much so that in the end it becomes quite clear that it is not his view?

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when the Labour Government were in power the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) had on more than one occasion to denounce speeches made by Field Marshal Montgomery?

5.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State and Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Hugh Fraser): It falls to me to answer some of the points which hon. Gentlemen have steered past your very determined Rulings of what was in order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker
On the general point raised by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), I think that the right view was that indicated by my right hon. Friend a short time ago. Obviously these things must be interpreted in common sense, both by those who are under orders from Ministers and by the Ministers themselves, with a view to reaching a happy arrangement. I think that the matter can be safely left there.
I very much regret that the three aces of the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) proved to be stumers. I am sure that that did not happen during his election campaign. It is a rash thing to say that you have aces up your sleeve when you have not. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me on his three points, I will certainly answer him.
The right ron. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) raised various points on which there was general accord. The right hon. Gentleman raised one specific point about Shepton Mallet. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this military prison will cease to exist by 1962 and the Prison Commissioners have agreed to take from the Armed Forces those men who are condemned to prison and discharge with ignominy. There are about 80 men involved, so it


is not such a very large number—I had that figure checked a moment ago.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of getting the right man into the right place, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).
In so far as my hon. Friend was in order, I, too, hope to keep in order. Of course, the size of the Royal Armoured Corps must now be tailored to the military needs of the Army as a whole. As a result, there has been this programme of amalgamation which, unfortunately, has been inevitable. But, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have to look at this problem as a whole. Certain of the tail arms are recruiting extremely well, especially where a mechanical aptitude is needed. We have to look very much at fitting men into the right situations and, as my right hon. Friend said, compulsion cannot be used. It must be a matter of persuasion or of substitution, where we can do that, either by civilianisation or by other means, such as using members of the W.R.A.C. and Q.A.R.A.N.C.
I was asked about the number of boys and apprentices who had achieved commissions. I am glad to say that of the present total of Regular and short service officers, 1,344 are ex-boys or apprentices. That is quite a high proportion of an officer strength getting on for between 17,000 and 20,000. This is overall, but the rate at the moment is rather higher. I think, though I have not checked this,

that the figure may be as high as 40 per cent. in one year for commissions from the ranks.
As the schools develop—and, as my right hon. Friend showed, they are developing at a very fast rate—the number of apprentices is increasing. For instance, the number which this year stands at 2,400 will next year be over 3,000 when the boys go back at the beginning of their summer term in April.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about further education and the matter, I think, was also raised by another hon. Member. Of course, this is something which is important to discipline and to the Army in general. We have progressed in the advanced courses of education which soldiers can now take. I hope that if any hon. Members raise this matter on the Estimates we shall be able to give them a good report of the increased standards which are available.
Various other points were raised by hon. Members, but I think that I have covered all those that were in order. If any hon. Member thought that he would not be within the bounds of order and therefore felt unwilling to run the gamut of your strictures, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I hope he will write to me, when I will give him the best answer I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Army Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — AIR FORCE ACT (CONTINUATION)

5.24 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I beg to move,
That the Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.
The House will by now be familiar with this procedure. We need an Order in Council at the end of each year in order to continue the life of the Air Force Act for a further year. Under Section 224 of the Act, the Order in Council has to be laid before Parliament in draft and approved by an affirmative Resolution of the House.
This is the third draft Order under the new procedure, and its purpose is, of course, to continue the Air Force Act in force throughout next year. We shall need a further Order in Council at the end of 1960, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War reminded the House earlier today, legislation will be necessary during 1961 to cater for the situation which will arise at the end of that year when the Act can no longer be renewed by Order in Council.
The Air Force Act has now been in operation for three years and we have found that, in general, it has worked very well. This is a deserved tribute to the care that was taken in its preparation by a Select Committee of the House.
The main object of this Order is, of course, to ensure the discipline of the Royal Air Force. We have now had experience of these debates for the last three years and on each occasion, and particularly last year, hon. Members have shown some interest in the statistics of courts martial in the Royal Air Force. Indeed, earlier this afternoon some figures were given for the Army by my right hon. Friend, and I felt that the House would like to hear something about the Royal Air Force also in this matter.
The figures for 1957 were 3·25 courts-martial per thousand strength of the Royal Air Force, and for 1958 3·5 per thousand. The corresponding figure for this year is 3·3 per thousand which, for the benefit of statisticians in the House, is, I am informed—I have not worked it out myself—0·33 per cent.
Of course, the majority of the disciplinary offences which occur in the Services are not dealt with by courts-martial at all. They are dealt with by the summary powers of commanding officers. The House will have heard with interest earlier this afternoon from my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War some of the modifications which he proposes to introduce into the Army for dealing with this kind of offence. These will, of course, be followed in the Royal Air Force, broadly speaking, but there are bound to remain certain minor differences which arise from different organisation, different conditions and differences in service life. However, as I say, generally speaking we are at one in trying to do away with the more niggling and petty aspects of discipline which my right hon. Friend described as being more of an irritant than a corrective.
It is customary in this debate also to mention the subject of recruiting. Although it would be wrong to be over-optimistic about this highly important subject, the news which I can give the House is, I think, on the whole satisfactory. Although during the past nine months of this year there has been a drop of nearly 3,000, compared with the same period in 1958, in the total number of airmen enlisting in the Royal Air Force on regular engagements, that drop has been due mainly to the decrease in the number entering on short-term engagements, to which entry has been deliberately restricted.
The number of airmen enlisting on the longer engagements of five years and more, on the other hand, has over the same period increased by 1,500, or just under 25 per cent. There has also been a continuous increase in extensions of service by those already serving. So far in 1959 it has been about one-sixth better than it was in 1958. The combined effect of the trends in both external and internal recruiting has been a substantial rise in the long-service content of the Force.
A most encouraging feature—and I am sure the House will agree with this—is the fact that over 50 per cent. of the airmen strength on 30th September last was serving on engagements of nine years or over. We have also raised our entry target for boy entrants from 2,400 a year to 3,300 a year, as from October,


to take advantage of what is popularly known as the birth-rate bulge.
Of course, the picture, bright though it is, is not without some shadows. For example, we are still not getting quite as many men as we should like to get in some trades that call for special ability—such as radio engineering—and in some of the less popular trades. However, we are making every effort to reduce our needs for uniformed men in these trades by introducing the most modern techniques of work study, by having as much mechanisation as we can, and by having as much civilianisation as we can within limits that are well known to the House.
There is a fourth way in which we hope to fill some of the gaps in our uniformed manpower, and that is by making as much use as possible of the Women's Royal Air Force. For that reason, before I leave the subject of recruiting, I should like to say a word about airwomen. As I have often said before, the Women's Royal Air Force forms an essential element in the build up of an all-Regular force.
There has been a very welcome increase in the recruitment of airwomen, partly due to the introduction in March of this year of the special local service engagement scheme—which has already attracted more than 350 recruits—and partly to the reduction in February of this year of the minimum age from 17½ to 17 years. In the first nine months of this year, 1,476 women enlisted for general service as compared with 1,146 for the same period in 1948—an increase of nearly 29 per cent. If we add the local service airwomen, the total becomes 1,807, an increase of nearly 60 per cent.
This, generally, is a very gratifying picture. Not only does it give us hopes of being able to fill gaps by using this element of the Force which we are unable to fill with Regular Service men, but it means that we are having some quite considerable success in convincing girls of the opportunities and interest that a career in the W.R.A.F. has to offer.
The conclusion that I would ask the House to draw is that we are proceeding smoothly, so far, towards the creation of a balanced all-Regular

Force. There are, of course, problems ahead, particularly in recruiting for the more specialised and skilled trades, and these problems must be overcome. Meanwhile, the trend of recruiting is satisfactorily, and in all other directions we are doing our best to provide the conditions necessary to attract men to a full career in the Royal Air Force.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: On this occasion I am acting simply as a substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), who is at a N.A.T.O. conference; but, as it gives me an opportunity to enter into a debate on the conditions of my own old Service, I am pleased to take his place. I do not pretend to have as intimate and up-to-date knowledge as has my hon. Friend, so I shall not attempt to say very much on this procedure, which corresponds to that which we have just debated in relation to the Army.
I was not quite clear in my under standing of what the Secretary of State said on one point. Is the Royal Air Force instituting reforms analogous to or comparable with those two reforms that have been instituted in the Army? The Army is substituting for admonitions something roughly analogous to the civilian probation system and is also abolishing the old confined-to-barracks penalty and introducing a new and less restricted one. If, as I gathered, such a change, not exactly the same as that in the Army but corresponding to it, is being made in the Air Force—

Mr. Ward: indicated assent.

Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman indicates assent. That change is welcome.
I listened as carefully as I could to the recruitment figures. I agree with the Secretary of State. I see no reason why the targets should not be reached if present trends continue. There is a drop in the figures this year, but I think that there was bound to be that drop, and in regard to the long-service content—the long-term matter on which everything turns—things seem to be going fairly well.
I am glad that the recruitment figures for the Women's Royal Air Force are improving. I have always believed that this branch of the Service was the key


to some of the difficulties in finding the personnel for many of the grades less popular with men. I find no necessity to detain the House further.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Richard Collard: On this, the first occasion on which I have the honour to address the House, I must ask for the indulgence usually shown to hon. Members speaking for the first time. I do not have the ordeal of addressing a full House, but I do have the ordeal of keeping within the extremely narrow terms that have been set for this debate. If I venture to make some preliminary remarks, which are usually acceptable in a maiden speech but which will tonight undoubtedly go a little outside the rules that have been laid down, then, again, I crave indulgence.
When I first came here I was given a good deal of advice about a maiden speech. I was told, first, that one should not make it too soon; second, that one should not leave it too late and, third, that it was desirable—though not essential—to know something of what one was speaking about. As to the last, I served for twenty-one years in the Royal Air Force and, as a result, I do not regard the annual renewal of the Air Force Act as a matter only of routine.
I have the honour to represent Norfolk, Central, and that constituency—and East Anglia in general—both topographically and geographically, has quite properly been a cradle for Service aviation. Early in the war, when I was serving with a bomber squadron at Feltwell, we flew on our missions to Europe over the lovely fields and country, part of which I now have the honour to represent here. East Anglia is acquainted not only with aviation, but with defence. Going right back to the times of the Vikings and the Danelaw, it has always been a salient towards the enemy. The people of East Anglia also have recent experience of defence matters, as is evidenced by the great network of war-time airfields in East Anglia, which for the most part are now, happily, under agricultural cultivation.
If I may stretch your patience a little further on this subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, after which I will go to the point at issue, I wish to refer to the fact that the Norwich Aero Club is one of the

oldest flying clubs in the country. It has been homeless and on hard days for some time. It has now found a home, but I hope that on another and more appropriate occasion it will be possible to put it to my right hon. Friend that he might consider whether the Norwich Aero Club may not find a home eventually at the airfield of Horsham St. Faith, which is now not as operational as it was.
We are discussing, among other things, the discipline of the Royal Air Force. The flying discipline of the Royal Air Force is dealt with briefly in the Air Force Act. Only three provisions deal with flying discipline as such. Section 46-states that
Any person subject to air-force-law who …
(b) by negligence loses or damages any of Her Majesty's aircraft …
(c) is guilty of any act or neglect likely to cause damage to or the loss of any of Her Majesty's aircraft or aircraft material … shall, on conviction by court-martial …
suffer a penalty not exceeding two years' imprisonment. Section 49 applies a similar penalty to those who by neglect in the use of Her Majesty's aircraft or aircraft material cause risk of loss of life or injury to other persons.
I wish briefly to draw the attention of the House to the conditions under which the aircrew of the Royal Air Force have to observe, and be governed by, those three provisions which I have quoted. I want to draw attention to the extreme complexity of modern aircraft, because it is in those aircraft that the aircrew have to discharge their duties and keep within the law which this House this afternoon proposes to continue.
This complexity applies to all types of Service aircraft, whether training, transport or operational, but it is, of course, the operational types which are most complex. It applies to bombers with a crew of five or six just as to fighters with a crew of one or two, because although the bombers are much more complex, the fighters have fewer men, hands, heads and eyes to operate them.
A modern aircraft in which the aircrew have to discharge these duties and observe these laws is virtually a flying power-house. Whereas originally, in the days when, perhaps, my right hon. Friend and I learnt to fly, an aircraft had in


it simply an engine and a method of control of the airframe, it is now a mass of complex systems affecting the flying controls, the electrical systems, the pressurisation, the fuel, and so on. The management of the great powerful engines is an undertaking in itself. The armaments system and the systems for priming and dropping the bombs, and for aiming the bombs, guns and rockets are in themselves highly complex systems. In that respect, the duties of aircrew of the Royal Air Force are that much more demanding than the duties of civil airline crews.
There is a great complexity of instruments and intricate drill which must be followed, placing a great responsibility and a great task upon the captains and the crew, who, if they transgress under these conditions, will still be subject to the laws and penalties which we are to continue this afternoon. They have to perform these duties in clothing which is constricted, complicated and cumbersome—inevitably so; clothing which must keep them warm and which must also keep them cool; clothing which must protect them in extremes of temperature or when descending into the sea and which must protect them in cockpit conditions of pressurisation and temperature which have continually to be watched and which, in the event of a quite small failure, will immediately precipitate a crisis.
Furthermore, they have to carry out these duties when subject to the force of gravity and when travelling at speeds equivalent to, or greater than, that of sound. These things will, of course, be more so in the future so long as manned aircraft continue. While these things are true in peacetime, there is in the background the potential responsibility that Air Force crews, and particularly bomber crews, would have to undertake in war, when they would have under their hand, on our behalf, immense power.
How are these duties being discharged? I cannot get figures of accidents, which would, of course, be subject to prosecution under the provisions of the Act which I have mentioned. Probably rightly, they are a matter of security. Possibly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, if he replies

to this discussion, will be able to say something about them. From my own observation, however, based in recent years on activities in the aircraft industry and particularly of Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force, it seems to me that an extraordinarily high standard of flying discipline has been achieved and is being maintained, a degree of flying discipline which, it would be fair to say, would have been quite unheard of at the beginning of the 'thirties when I learnt to fly.
I believe that this satisfactory state of affairs is due in the first place to the high calibre of the crews—and how right it is that a very high standard of recruitment should be imposed. It also stems from the very high standard of leadership of all ranks, particularly the commanders and the higher commanders. After all, one of their principal duties is to impose discipline, including flying discipline. It is noticeable that the higher commanders of the Royal Air Force are of the first calibre and are closely acquainted with, and expert themselves in, the whole business of flying, which makes them particularly suitable for the administration of flying discipline.
That satisfactory state of affairs springs from a general devotion to duty which the Royal Air Force has always had. It springs especially from the remarkably high standard of training which obtains in the Air Force today, which certainly did not obtain in the years before the war simply because, in the state of knowledge of the art at that time, it was not possible to bring an air force to such a high standard of training. Admittedly, the Service may be a little more sober-minded than it was. The days are long past when it was said that for the Army an order was an order, but for the Air Force it was an excuse for an argument. Those days are long past, and I do not think that we should regret them.
I have ventured to make these points because it is very easy for the disciplinary side of the Royal Air Force to get adverse publicity. It used to be so over low flying. Now it may be a case of an Air Force aircraft inadvertently going rather close to an airliner containing some hon. Members. However, there are many hon. Members who understand these things, no one better than my right hon. Friend, who is himself an aviator


and who has great experience at the Air Ministry.
I hope that he will agree that it is right, even on this somewhat limited occasion, to say something about which we hear all too seldom, namely, the extraordinary high standard of flying discipline which obtains in the Royal Air Force. I think that I speak for all hon. Members, whatever their opinions on defence, when I say that we regard that aspect of the Royal Air Force's activities with pride and admiration.
A maiden speech is one in which, I suppose, one should say something which comes near to one's heart. I therefore make no apology for having dealt with this matter and for having paid a tribute to the aircrews of the Royal Air Force, upon whose readiness, steadiness and devotion to duty and upon whose courage and skill the future safety of these islands must now chiefly depend.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard) told us that he bad been advised to speak on a subject about which he knew something, and I am bound to tell him that the House has been fascinated by the way in which he has been able to give to the least technically-minded of us an understanding of the way in which this modern profession to which he belongs has achieved so high a standard of efficiency and so splendid a discipline in handling things which, to some of us, are mere mysteries to which we commit ourselves in the sure and certain hope that the man who is flying the aircraft knows a great deal more about it than we shall ever expect to be able to know. When we look at the array of instruments and knobs in front of him, we wonder how on that amazing organ a pilot will get any tune at all that will see us to the other side of the Atlantic.
After hearing the hon. Member, I am sure that we all feel that he is a worthy representative of a great modern calling which we honour. We wish him every success in his period of service in the House. Let me assure him that if he can ever fascinate us again as he did today, he will not have to complain of the smallness of the audience to which he then has to address himself. I can

assure him that in speaking to our colleagues in the House all of us present will express our admiration of the speech which we have just heard.
I have noticed that in their maiden speeches in this Parliament new Members have generally paid a tribute to their predecessor. I hope that I shall not get into trouble with the Government Whips if I say that I hope that on matters which he understands so well the hon. Member will be able to show the same spirit of independence which distinguished his predecessor.
I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member into the technicalities with which he dealt so illuminatingly. I want to say a few words about the Women's Royal Air Force. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will keep in touch with the grammar schools, the secondary modern schools and, particularly, with the technical colleges where women students are becoming increasingly interested in the complications of the mechanism with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt. In that way he will have a steady supply of capable recruits who will be able to help in building up this great Service.
We know from our experience of two world wars of the way in which the woman who takes an interest in this sort of thing can become exceedingly competent and discharge the duties assigned to her with a conscientiousness worthy of the eulogies which the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central paid to the men in the Service. I hope that we shall be able to make many highly intelligent girls feel that in this Service they can find a life's work which will give them satisfaction and will assist in the organisation of one of our great Armed Forces.

5.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I want first to join in the congratulations so admirably offered by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Collard). As we have heard, my hon. Friend has a great record of service in the Royal Air Force. One always listens with special attention and great respect to one who has long and distinguished service of the kind my hon. Friend has. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing the hope that


we shall hear my hon. Friend on many occasions, and we look forward to doing so.
There is one voice which we have missed in these debates today, that of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who is usually very active in these matters. I hope—and I am sure that all hon. Members will join with me—that his recovery will be speedy and his return to the House not long delayed.

Mr. Ede: I heard that the hon. Member had his operation yesterday, that it has been very satisfactory and that he is looking forward to being back with us rather sooner than some hon. Members might hope.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to hear of his excellent progress.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I saw the hon. Member this afternoon, just for a couple of minutes. He is in very good form, but suffering a little pain, and suffering pain unduly because he is sorry that he cannot be with us.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the first thing that the hon. Member will do in the morning will be to read the OFFICIAL REPORT of today's debates. If these messages of good will reach him as soon as that, I am sure that that is all we desire.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) asked whether the Royal Air Force intended to march in step with the Army in the changes in disciplinary code which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War mentioned earlier. Our intention is to abolish confinement to camp and to institute a new punishment termed "Restrictions". This will mean that a man on Restrictions will be required to perform two hours of fatigues in addition to the his normal work, or extra duties if there are no fatigues to be done. On non-working days such defaulters would be required to work during normal working hours. This scheme is designed to restrict the defaulter's freedom during the day, but I ought to make it clear that it would not prevent a married man sleeping at home.
In addition, the defaulter will be required to answer his name at two parades a day, one in the morning and

one at night. The large amount of shift work in the Royal Air Force makes it impracticable to fix particular times, and this would be left to the discretion of commanding officers. The Royal Air Force has no system of booking in and out of camp, so it would be impracticable to confine a man to camp once he had performed the necessary fatigues and answered his name on parade.
In fact, we have no permanent pass system. In our view, once a man has finished his duty he should be free to come and go as he pleases until he is next required for duty. Nor do we intend to prohibit the wearing of civilian clothing out of working hours. We have no means of ensuring that only a defaulter walks out of camp in uniform, and I would regard this more as an irritant than a punitive measure.
All these matters are designed to remove the petty restrictions and irritants in the Service to which my right hon. Friend referred, and year by year we are making such improvements as appear proper and timely.
In a brilliant maiden speech which we all very much enjoyed my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central raised the important subject of flying discipline. As he will know from his own experience, this is a matter which the Service takes very seriously indeed. The high standard to which my hon. Friend referred has been raised even higher than before and this is one of the most important factors in the decline in the accident rate. This decline was mentioned in the last Air Estimates Memorandum. The improvement has been fully maintained in recent months. For reasons of security and morale it is not our practice to give precise statistics of accident rates and their causes. I can, however, say that the proportion of major accidents attributable to breaches of flying discipline is very low indeed. Only one court martial has been necessary in the last twelve months for a breach of flying discipline.
My hon. Friend referred to the high standard of air crews. Anyone who has seen the men employed on these onerous duties will be filled, as all of us who have had a little experience of it are, with tremendous admiration for the men in the Royal Air Force today.
My hon. Friend also referred to low flying. During the year the Royal Air Force received a number of complaints from members of the public about low flying. All these complaints have received the most careful investigation. Often the information was too scanty to enable us to identify the aircraft, or investigation showed that the aircraft did not belong to the Royal Air Force. When a Royal Air Force aircraft can be identified the matter is taken up with the station concerned. It is usually found that there was a valid reason for the low flying. Either it was an authorised flight in a low flying area or a practice flight for a special occasion, or was necessary because of weather conditions. As might be expected, we have had most complaints when major exercises have been taking place.
This year the Daily Mail air race gave rise to a number of complaints, but in the circumstances I feel that low flying was perhaps justified. In the year which ended on 30th September there was only one conviction by court-martial for flying offences. In my view, this indicates the high standard of flying discipline in the Royal Air Force.
There is one other aspect of flying discipline which it might be appropriate to mention, and that is sonic booms. Supersonic flying by the Royal Air Force is normally prohibited over land in the United Kingdom. Some people attribute sonic booms to flying indiscipline. Although about 120 cases of damage or disturbance caused by aircraft breaking the sound barrier were reported during the year, only three cases were attributable to Royal Air Force aircraft. All three were accidental incidents, two being caused by a Hunter and one by a Javelin aircraft. Most of the others were caused by a Ministry of Aviation aircraft under development in a properly controlled and authorised manner.
As the House knows, it is our general practice to pay compensation whenever there is any reasonable evidence of damage genuinely caused by sonic booms. Nor do we seek to shelter behind the difficulties of aircraft identification when these claims are made. That point is worth making because of the remarks of my hon. Friend about uninformed, and in some cases disparaging,

publicity which the Royal Air Force often gets as a result of incidents of this kind.
My right hon. Friend referred to general recruitment. The fact is that the total number of regular recruits has dropped compared with last year. This was due to a decrease in the number entering on short-time engagements. It has been our policy to restrict short-term engagements. The number of airmen enlisting on long-term engagements, that is to say for five years or more, has increased over the same period by 25 per cent. There has also been a continuous rise in the number of those already serving to extend their engagements.
The overall effect has been a significant increase in the long-term content of the Force. Over 50 per cent. of the total strength of the Air Force on 30th September last were serving on engagements of nine years or more. We are also aiming to recruit more boy entrants. From October we have raised our entry target from 2,400 to 3,300 a year to take advantage of what is popularly known and referred to as the birth-rate bulge.
In some trades we are not getting as many men of the quality that we would like. Some of these trades, such as radio engineering, require special ability. Other trades which require less skill are not so popular among recruits. We are making every effort to reduce our manpower requirement by seeking greater efficiency in these trades through work study and mechanisation.
The right hon. Member for South Shields mentioned the Women's Royal Air Force, and suggested that the Air Ministry should keep in close touch with schools, colleges and women's educational establishments. I assure him that his suggestion will be followed up and that we will certainly do whatever we can to put it into practical effect. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking along the right lines and that great benefit may accrue from a proper application of that idea.
There were no other points of major importance made in this debate and I hope that the House will feel that it can give approval to this Order. If any right hon. or hon. Member who has a point about which he would like further


information will write to me, I will do my best to furnish him with an adequate reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Air Force Act, 1955 (Continuation) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF NATIONAL SERVICE (DISSOLUTION)

6.10 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of National Service (Dissolution) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th October.
It was thought that, with the recent reconstruction of the Administration and the changes in other Departments, it might be a convenient moment to shorten the title of the Ministry of Labour and National Service and revert to the old title of "Ministry of Labour." This is being done by two Orders, the one which I have just mentioned and the Minister of Labour Order, 1959. Under that Order, which is subject to the negative procedure, all the responsibilities and duties of the Minister of National Service are transferred to the Minister of Labour. This Order, which

is subject to the affirmative procedure, dissolves the Ministry of National Service.
The House will appreciate, therefore, that this completes a process which is purely a change of name and makes absolutely no difference to the powers and responsibilities of my Department or myself. The whole of the responsibilities of the Minister of National Service are transferred to the Minister and Ministry of Labour, and will be carried on in the same way as before.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: We believe that the way in which this is being done is right. We were concerned at first about whether some of the duties which the Ministry of National Service had specifically from the Ministry of Labour would be overhanging when the Ministry of National Service came to an end. But that point has been cleared up on reading the Ministry of Labour Order, 1959. We think this the best method of procedure, and we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of National Service (Dissolution) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 27th October.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — SERVICE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLY ORDER

6.14 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move,
That the Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

The Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I understand that it would meet the convenience of the House if, with this Order, we discuss the following Prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Service Departments Supply (No. 1) Order, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 1827), dated 30th October, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be annulled.

Mr. Sandys: I think it would be very convenient were we to discuss the two together.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to the House, the new Ministry of Aviation is being set up and the Ministry of Supply disbanded in order to bring under one Minister the Government's responsibilities for civil aviation and for the supply of aircraft both civil and military. In coming to this conclusion, the Government have taken account of the numerous suggestions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House over a long period.
The Ministry of Aviation will also be responsible for the supply of guided weapons, including ballistic missiles, radar and other electronic equipment and of nuclear weapons. The bulk of the other procurement functions of the former Ministry of Supply will be transferred to the War Office which will then be responsible for the supply of stores and equipment needed by the Army, such as guns, ammunition, tanks, uniforms and so forth.
The War Office will consequently take over fourteen of the sixteen Royal Ordnance factories. The remaining two are concerned wholly with the production of items for which the Ministry of Aviation is responsible and they will therefore be retained by that Ministry. Where appropriate, arrangements may be made for the Admiralty and Air Ministry to supply themselves with certain stores and equipment previously procured from

the Ministry of Supply, and for which the Ministry of Aviation will no longer be responsible. Responsibility for such stores and equipment used by more than one Service will usually rest with the War Office which in many cases is the largest user.
In order to effect these changes three Orders in Council are necessary. The Ministry of Aviation Order, 1959, grants first to the Ministry of Supply the functions in respect of civil aviation of the former Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. At the same time it changes the title of the Ministry of Supply to that of Ministry of Aviation. The Service Departments Supply (No. 1) Order restores to the War Office the supply powers transferred from the War Office to the Ministry of Supply in 1939. Similarly, it restores to the Air Ministry the supply powers, with the exception of those relating to aircraft, which were transferred from the Air Ministry to the Ministry of Aircraft Production when it was formed in 1940. These powers were transferred to the Ministry of Supply m 1946. No similar action is necessary in the case of the Admiralty which never lost its procurement powers.
The Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order preserves to the Ministry of Aviation the powers of a supply Department which it would otherwise have lost through the transfer of those powers to the War Office and the Air Ministry under the No. 1 Order. This arrangement gives to the Ministry of Aviation the latitude necessary to enable it to supply the Army and the Royal Air Force with weapons and equipment, such as guided missiles, radar and other electronic apparatus. These changes should not involve any additional expenditure. Some formal adjustments of the Votes approved by Parliament for this year's expenditure will be necessary. The token, new or Supplementary Estimates required will be laid before the House in due course.
As I have explained, this and other related Orders will bring about the end of the Ministry of Supply. I well remember, as will the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)—he was representing the Seaham constituency at that time—the debates which we had in this House before the war when many of us repeatedly pressed Mr. Chamberlain's


Government to set up a Ministry of Supply. We regarded the creation of such a Ministry as essential for the effective and rapid rearming of the country to meet the growing danger of war. Many of us, too, regarded this as a test of the Government's determination.
During two years of the war I was myself Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply and later, in 1951, I was for three years the Minister. I should not, therefore, like this occasion to pass without paying my tribute to the outstanding work of this great Department, both in war and in peace, and to the high qualities and fine spirit of all those who have served in it—civil servants, scientists and technicians, as well as members of the Armed Forces. They have established a splendid tradition which will, I am sure, live on under the new names and the new organisations.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I wish to refer to the Prayer standing on the Order Paper praying that the Service Departments Supply (No. 1) Order be annulled. We on these benches do not wish to make a party issue out of this matter but we wish to raise in a preliminary way, at any rate, the very important issues that are involved and which the Minister of Aviation, indeed, has emphasised are involved by this reorganisation of Government Departments mainly concerned with the supply of the Armed Forces.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, what we are being asked to do is to approve the break-up of the Ministry of Supply. As he further said, the Ministry of Supply was set up at the beginning of the last war as a new, and in that period untried, system for the supply of the three Services so that the great demands on industry and the productive power of the country should be co-ordinated and such of the military supplies as were needed should be ordered in bulk with great economies in efficiency.
Of course, it would be true to say that the system was never fully developed The Admiralty never came under it fully. There were always exceptions. Then at a later stage there was the Ministry of Aircraft Production which was a greater

exception still, perhaps, though that was a temporary one and in the post-war phase that again was altered.
As the Minister has said, there were great hopes for this system. It was felt that this was a far superior system to the older one under which the three Service Ministries ordered their supplies separately and, perhaps, in competition with each other. It was felt that there were advantages in such a centralised system. On the other hand, it would be true to say that no one with firsthand experience of this system—and mine is quite brief—can be unaware of its disadvantages. It separated the customer from his supply. It put a link in the chain between the two. I see the Secretary of State for War here, and I imagine that he, for one, will be very glad to go back to the older system in which he orders direct from his suppliers. There are advantages and disadvantages in the two different systems.
What we are exercised about is—and the Minister of Aviation did not say very much about it—that the new system is not going back to the older pre-war system of each Service Department ordering direct from its suppliers. It is a curious mixture of the two systems. The War Office goes back to that old system almost completely. The position of the Admiralty is not clear to me. The Admiralty has always maintained its independence in respect of warships. What will be its position now in respect of aircraft?
Again, there is the enormous exception of the Air Force, which will now order its supplies not direct under the prewar system, not through the Ministry of Supply, but through the new Ministry over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, which will be concerned partly with defence and also with civil aviation. Therefore, the new system will be no more tidy or logical than the old. It will be a curious mixture of the two.
This evening we are taking up this issue in a very preliminary way, but in the defence debates, in the Service Estimates debates and as we go on in the New Year, we shall want to know a great deal more about it. We shall want to know how the naval aircraft are to fit into the arrangement. We shall want to know how the not inconsiderable


number of aircraft for the use of the Army will fit into it. We have no picture of that so far.
Then again, there is the very interesting and difficult question of the organisation of the Government—perhaps I should say the reorganisation—which this will entail. What will be the position of the Minister of Aviation? Is he to be a member of the Defence Committee? Is he to be a Defence Minister at all? It may be said that he is not to be a Defence Minister at all. But how can that really be when his responsibilities in matters of defence are gigantic, when the whole provision of aircraft falls within his responsibilities, to say nothing of missiles? There is this enormous new defence field. He is, of course, a member of the Cabinet and, therefore, there will be a second Minister of equal Cabinet rank to the Defence Minister closely concerned in practice—whether in theory I do not know—with defence matters in the Cabinet. I repeat, is he or is he not to be a member of the Defence Committee? It may be that this new arrangement has advantages compared with the previous one, but it certainly does not appear to be a logical or complete solution to these very difficult questions—and I should be the last to deny that they are very difficult.
Going back to the main theme, we have this dilemma either of failing to centralise our orders for the three Services or of injecting a link in the chain between the customer and the supplier. The only way in which we could have the advantages of both systems would be if the Services could be to a large extent unified. If the Services were effectively unified as one Service, though they might still wear different coloured uniforms, the Services in their unified form could order direct through a centralised buying agency. That is the only way in which the advantages of both systems would combine. But that, no doubt, is still a long way ahead, even if we are moving, as I for one would imagine we are, inexorably in that direction.
We on this side of the House wish, on tills the first occasion when the new arrangements have been before the House, to raise these questions and we give notice that we shall want to hear

very much more about them in due course. We cannot feel that these arrangements, which are put before us in a preliminary way in these Orders, represent any final solution whatever to the very difficult problems involved.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Occasionally, Mr. Speaker, when a death is announced, the public or the friends of the person who has passed away are informed that the funeral is to be private. On this occasion, you, Sir, are officiating at the interment of the Ministry of Supply. There are very few mourners present. It is appropriate that I should be here on this melancholy occasion because, for several years, I have demanded the abolition of the Ministry of Supply. Mine has been almost the sole voice requesting the Government to make an end of this unweildy and wasteful Department—frowned upon by members of Her Majesty's Government and, I am bound to say, frowned upon by my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom thought that they had a vested interest in the Ministry of Supply, either in the past or in the future. Now, it is to disappear, lock, stock and barrel. What remains? Before I come to that, I must dilate a little upon the history of this adventure.
It is perfectly true, as the Minister of Civil Aviation—I beg his pardon; he is not only civil but he is also military—as the Minister of Aviation has said, that I was associated with the demand which was made before 1939 for the creation of a Ministry of Supply. Our demands fell on deaf ears for some considerable time. Eventually, the Government, like all Governments, responded after a delay to the quite logical and essential demands which were made by back benchers. The same applied to the Ministry of Production. I well remember that during the war, when from the Opposition Front Bench I asked the Prime Minister to create a Ministry of Production, the Government then thought it quite unnecessary. They said that we had a Minister of Supply. Why should we have a Minister of Production? Eventually, after eighteen months, they created the Ministry of Production, and Mr. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos, was appointed as the first Minister. I remember, also, that he


invited me to come up to his Department to discuss what ought to be done, since I had ventured to suggest that such a Department should be created. But, in the end, it disappeared. It served its term.
I do not for a moment deny that during the war the Ministry of Supply performed a very useful and, indeed, essential service. I indulge in no disparaging or derogatory remarks about anybody associated with the Ministry of Supply. It is just that the conception itself, once the war had passed or, at any rate, not long after the post-war period had begun, was no longer necessary. There has been considerable delay in deciding about its abolition.
What is to happen now? I confess that after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite and, I am bound to say, with very great respect, after listening to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), I am as confused now about the priorities, about categories and about the precise details of this new venture as I was when I first read about it in the newspapers. It will require a great deal of interrogation and analysis before we discover exactly what is intended.
One thing I do know is that a wrong step has been taken. Nobody knows it better than the ex-Minister of Defence, now the Minister of Aviation. We all recall with what a great blast of trumpets the Prime Minister thrust upon the then Minister of Defence, now the right hon. Gentleman opposite who is the Minister of Aviation, the task of integrating the Defence Departments or co-ordinating the Defence Departments, integrating policy and vesting in the Minister of Defence the need for co-operation among the Service Departments. It was a fine concept, heralded on all sides as a most desirable venture.
However, when the proposition was first announced some of us on this side of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West, I think, along with others, asked for a further step in the direction of co-operation, if not integration, namely, that there should be placed under the aegis of the Minister of Defence all the functions which were associated with the Minister of Supply,

except in respect of civil material. In so far as the Minister of Supply was responsible for research, design, development and production—not necessarily through the Ministry itself but through private firms throughout the country—it was thought desirable that they should all be brought under the umbrella of the Minister of Defence, thus creating a Ministry of Defence responsible for defence policy, responsible for strategy and responsible also for standardisation in respect of all the material required for the purposes of defence.
That is a reasonable concept. It is by no means original. It is in operation in many other countries. Why not in this country? This has not happened. Instead, we have—I say this with very great respect, but I can think of no other term—a kind of dog's breakfast. It is a curious mixture. It is very difficult to determine who has authority, where the priorities are, and all the rest. What I understand from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is that he is now responsible, as Minister of Aviation, only for co-ordinating activities in connection with civil and military aircraft. This in itself is understandable and, indeed, very desirable.
As Minister of Defence, I had myself experienced great difficulty with the aircraft companies because of the lack of co-ordination, the delays, the frills and furbelows associated with the production of aircraft, because of modifications which occurred from time to time and which delayed the production of aircraft, particularly aircraft regarded by the Minister of Defence as urgent. It is desirable that the Minister should now have the function of pressing on with all the power at his command for the cooperation that is essential if the aircraft industry is to be of real value either to itself or to the country. I was however, surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say—I think this requires a great deal of consideration—that he is to be responsible for the production of missiles, ballistic missiles and, presumably, rockets.
I am not clear where the Air Ministry comes in. It would seem that the Air Ministry is left out on a limb in contradistinction to the War Office, which is now reverting to the old concept of the Master General of the Ordnance, which


was the case in my time in 1929 when I was Financial Secretary to the War Office when we had the Woolwich Arsenal at our disposal. We were responsible for a number of depôts and we produced our own material. We were then about to produce tanks. We produced a variety of army vehicles and ammunition.
If we cannot have the scheme for which I wish and which I have demanded in many speeches in the House when discussing defence matters, namely, integration under the Ministry of Defence, not interference in any way with the administrative functions of the three Service Ministries—I have never suggested that that should happen—but co-ordination which enables the Ministry of Defence to keep the whole of the purposes of defence under its supervision, then I have no objection to the War Office reverting to the old function of running the show.
It may be that I am prejudiced in the matter, having been Secretary of State for War, but I regard the Army as one of the most efficient vehicles of organisation in this country. We may disagree with the Army occasionally about policy matters, but in respect of organisation it is supreme, and, in my judgment, is much better than the Royal Navy. The trouble with the Navy, the Silent Service, is that it gets away with murder. I remember that when I was Minister of Defence and had to preside over the Defence Council the Navy hardly said a word. It always got its own way without saying anything, whereas the Army and the Royal Air Force had to fight for what they wanted. There the Navy's representatives sat, with all the gold braid at their command. Even the present supreme authority at the Ministry of Defence, Lord Mount-batten, never said a word, but the Navy always got what it wanted.
The Navy is like the Russians. It does not have to go to war because it always gets what it wants without a struggle. The functions of shipbuilding and ship repairing were transferred to the Admiralty, and when I argued in this House that the Admiralty knew very little about these matters I was told that I was wrong. What happened? At long last, in the last few weeks, shipbuilding and ship repairing have been transferred from the Admiralty to the Ministry of

Transport. It takes a long time to get anything done in this House.
I think that I am entitled to say, therefore, that a mistake has been made. Another false step has been taken, but we must make the best of it. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will believe me when I say that I have not said these things because I am opposed to defence organisation. It is not because I am opposed to the existence of a Ministry of Defence and the three Service Departments. I want them to be efficient. I do not want them to be wasteful. We are spending vast sums of money on defence, far more than we can afford. We have spent more than £12,000 million since 1951 on defence. I do not know how much we shall spend next year. The Minister of Aviation said that there would be no change in expenditure.
I should have thought that as the Ministry of Supply is being abolished it would be possible to save some money, but apparently we shall not save anything. In addition to the £1,500 million or £1,600 million which the Ministry of Defence has been spending with the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply has been spending on an average about £270 million a year in the past seven or eight years. The repetition of research operations is not good enough. The Admiralty is doing it. The Air Ministry was doing a little of it, The War Office abandoned it, but left it to the Ministry of Supply, and the Ministry of Supply was doing it. This is not good enough. We must run our affairs in a much more efficient fashion.
There is no partisanship in this matter. There is nothing political in it. It is a question of running a business in a sensible fashion. That is all I am asking for, but I am not getting my own way. I got my own way with regard to the Ministry of Supply and to the Ministry of Production, and even in the creation of a Ministry of Shipping which the Government originally rejected but eventually agreed to. I have been saying that the Ministry of Defence should run the whole show, but I have been told that that will not do. I therefore accept the position in the hope that in 18 months' or two years' time it will be discovered that this scheme does not work very well and that the functions transferred to the War


Office will be handed back to the Ministry of Defence and those of the Ministry of Aviation transferred to the Ministry of Defence. The right hon. Gentleman will then find himself transferred to another job in the Government.
This is fun and games, but we are spending at far too great a rate and I do not like it. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West that when we come to the defence debates we shall have to ask a few more questions, all in the interest of the nation and without any party spirit, in the hope that the Government will at long last develop a defence organisation along common sense lines.

6.47 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute. I will certainly not be drawn into following the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in his strictures on the Admiralty.

Mr. Shinwell: Why not?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Because I do not think that it is in order in this debate to do so. However, like him, I think he will admit that I have advocated, although in a much humbler way, the winding up of the Ministry of Supply, and, like him, I have always advocated, and I still confess that I would prefer to see, that the military supply functions of the Ministry of Aviation should somehow be brought within the scope of the Ministry of Defence. However, to be perfectly fair to my right hon. Friend, I know that he has always consistently opposed that point of view. He did so when he was Minister of Defence. He has always been straightforward in giving the reason why he did not favour an arrangement of that nature, and I admit that there are solid arguments against it as well as in favour of it. But one must be frank and confess that there is ground perhaps for a little uneasiness about this arrangement.
It was always said, rather scurrilously, that the reason why the Mesopotamian campaign was fought in the First World War was that the Quarter Master General was senior to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, and he sent a lot of food

to Mesopotamia and the Army had to be sent there to eat it.
The fear that one has now is that the operational parts of the three fighting Services, particularly the Royal Air Force, which is chiefly affected, may perhaps not always get the equipment that they want, because we have a senior and powerful Minister independent of them in charge of the provisioning and supply arrangements. I can understand that the aircraft industry at the moment faces a position of great difficulty which has arisen from the policy imposed, quite rightly in my judgment, by my right hon. Friend when he was Minister of Defence in 1957. We know that the falling off of orders for military aircraft has produced a position of great difficulty.
There is the added complexity of the change-over of some of these firms from the manufacture of aircraft, on the one hand, to the manufacture of missiles on the other, which is now needed. I can therefore see, and I am sure it will be admitted on both sides of the House, that there may well be a case for the time being to have a strong Department, and a strong Minister in charge of it, responsible for the supply duties which are now entrusted to the Ministry of Aviation.
The question which I should like to put to my right hon. Friend is perhaps rather a leading one and I dare say he will not answer it. Are these arrangements regarded as more or less permanent or as something which is transitional and, after a few years when the new pattern of defence becomes more established, they may be modified? A second question I wish to ask him—to which I hope he will reply because I think he should answer it—concerns the 1958 White Paper on the Central Organisation for Defence. That White Paper in certain respects is rendered out of date by the Orders we are discussing tonight. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend whether or not it is intended to bring out a revised version of the White Paper. If that were done, many of the anxieties expressed by the two right hon. Members opposite who have spoken might well be resolved.
Finally, I must admit that I share the regret expressed earlier in this short debate that my right hon. Friend the other day, in answer to a Question, said


he foresaw no redundancy as a result of this change-over. J had hoped that he would have foreseen redundancy. One hopes, indeed I think we are entitled to expect, that when a big reorganisation of this kind takes place it should be accompanied with at least a certain reduction in the staffs of those administering the supply of warlike equipment.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I shall do my best to answer the various points which have been raised. Perhaps, first. I could say a word in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). He asked me a very difficult question—it was not really a very difficult one but a very simple one—whether these new arrangements would be permanent. I think it very safe to say that they will not. It is not that I am suggesting that the Government have any plans for changing them, but one has to consider the changes which have taken place in these arrangements since I have been in Parliament. First, the Service Departments were responsible for their own supply, then the Ministry of Supply dealt with War Office supplies, then the Ministry of Aircraft Production took over Air Force requirements and then it was merged with the Ministry of Supply. Now the Ministry of Aviation is responsible for various duties connected with the Services. I am not saying that we have any arrangements or proposals for altering them after a given period of time.
My hon. and gallant Friend asked me whether we were proposing to publish a new White Paper on the organisation of defence. I cannot see that the 1958 White Paper is very much out of date. The only thing which I can see is out of date is a reference to a Minister of Supply, who no longer exists. I do not think we could justify publishing a new White Paper. I see no need—and I think I can speak for the Government as a whole, because this matter has been considered—that the changes which are now being made should involve any alteration in the central organisation of defence, or the sharing of Ministerial responsibilities.
I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind but I have made it clear that the division of responsibility between the Minister of Supply

and the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers will, under the new arrangements, remain as it was previously, except, of course, that as Minister of Aviation I shall no longer be responsible for certain aspects of the procurement programme, namely, those transferred to the War Office.
I made it quite clear that I have no intention, as some newspapers have suggested, of trying to do my old job from my new office as well as fulfilling my new responsibilities and the headaches which have been entrusted to me. I should like to make it quite clear that there is no change in the broad set-up, nor even in responsibility. I think that needed to be said because there have been people who suggested that either there were going to be changes, or alternatively, there would be friction, between the Minister of Defence and myself. So far we have worked very happily together and I cannot see any causes for friction or difficulty. The responsibilities were fairly laid down in the White Paper to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred and they stand completely unaltered and unaffected by the changes we are now discussing.
The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made another of his breezy speeches which we all enjoy. They were not so breezy when he was at the Dispatch Box. I always remember that he was then very much bound by the official brief he received. It is a great joy to us to hear him let himself go with that ease with which he now delights the House. He advocated today that the functions of the Ministry of Supply should be transferred to the Ministry of Defence and he has advocated that on a number of occasions. I have no doubt, although I have not consulted my right hon. Friend, that the present Minister of Defence thinks exactly as I did when I was Minister of Defence. I should not be surprised if the right hon. Member for Easington thought the same when he was Minister of Defence, but it is such a long time ago that I do not think he can remember. I should have thought he would have done something to get these powers if he thought that necessary.

Mr. Shinwell: Let me make this quite clear. It is a rather interesting point. This is a disclosure, but I do not think it is any violation of the Official Secrets


Act. I actually went to the Prime Minister, then Mr. Attlee, and suggested that we should abolish the Ministry of Supply because I felt at the time that if we were to handle the production side—the materials and the rest—at the Ministry of Defence we must have some supervision over that side of the Department's activities.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Member has made a very interesting disclosure. It seems from what he has said that the Labour Government, in turning down the proposal made by the right hon. Member, felt the same as Her Majesty's present Government that it was undesirable that the Minister of Defence should assume these additional responsibilities. The reasons I have always given, which I am sure are sound ones, are that one of the great advantages of the present set-up is that the Minister of Defence, who has very heavy responsibilities for the formulation of major strategic and other defence policies, really has the time to think.
As anybody, including the right hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), knows, anyone who has a large administrative department with a fearful lot of day-today problems finds great difficulty in giving his time and his attention to the things which are most important. Again and again, one finds that whilst one has some very important issue of policy to settle which requires a great deal of thought and discussion, some far less important question, but one which needs to be settled today, has to be dealt with immediately, and the more important problem is put on one side for the time being.
I thought, after having been in various Departments, that when I went to the Ministry of Defence I could for the first time settle down to discuss and give whatever time was necessary to thinking out the solutions to really major issues of policy, without being interfered with and interrupted by extraneous administrative problems. I have no doubt that if we were suddenly to hand over to the Minister of Defence a Department with about 30,000 civil servants, non-industrials, and some 50,000 industrials to deal with on top of his policy making, we should swamp him and seriously handicap

him in considering the major issues of policy. I shall be very surprised if my right hon. Friend thinks otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman and also my hon. and gallant Friend referred to the questions of savings and redundancies. Of course, we should all like to see savings in staff and expenditure, but savings are got by reducing the work, not by changing the title of the Ministry or by transferring the work from one Minister to another. The same work has to be done; the same work which was being done by the Ministry of Supply on tanks and shells and ammunition will have to be done now by the War Office, and I have no doubt that the same people will be doing it, sitting in the same offices, and that they will be paid the same salaries. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that because we make these transfers from one Department to another we shall automatically achieve any saving of expenditure.

Mr. Shinwell: Why do it then?

Mr. Sandys: The reason for doing it is not expenditure or savings.

Mr. Shinwell: Why, then?

Mr. Sandys: I will come to that. I have already said a good deal about it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not sufficiently follow me.

Mr. Shinwell: Oh, yes, I did.

Mr. Sandys: As I say, naturally the changes which are being effected will not of themselves produce savings. I should not like the House to think, however, that the Government will not continue as they always do to scrutinise at all times the expenditure, whether of Service Departments or Civil Departments, over the whole field to see how, and where, and when, savings can be made.
Already very considerable reductions have been made in the staffing of the Supply Departments as a result of the reduction in the programme, in one way or another; but in the end, unless there is great inefficiency, we can reduce staff and expenditure only as the result of reducing the work and the jobs to be done.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West said that these new arrangements for Service procurement


were something of a mixture. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington said the same. It is perfectly true; they are something of a mixture. I will say a word about that in a moment. But the right hon. Gentleman asked one or two specific questions.
He asked how much the Admiralty was affected. As usual, the Admiralty will not be affected; for the simple reason that it never lost its procurement powers during the war and, therefore, there is no change to be made in that direction. As for aircraft, which was another matter the right hon. Gentleman inquired about, the Admiralty's aircraft, like the aircraft for the Air Force and for the Army, will continue to be provided under a single system, as before. It will now be done through the Ministry of Aviation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West said it was an illogical mixture, and suggested it would be more logical to transfer all the procurement powers of the Service Departments, or alternatively to maintain the old Ministry of Supply as it was in its entirety, while adding to it functions of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have already recognised that this is not a clear-cut logical arrangement. However, I think the criticism which is made arises from the fact that, perhaps, hon. and right hon. Members making this criticism are looking at it from a standpoint different from that from which the Government have approached it. If Service procurement had been the sole or overriding consideration, either of these two courses proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, which are more logical and more tidy, might have been adopted. But I say quite frankly that the reorganisation of military procurement is not the main reason for this change in the distribution of Ministerial responsibilities.
The principal reason for creating the Ministry of Aviation is to enable the interrelated problems of the aircraft industry and the airlines to be tackled together by a single Minister. Both these industries, as the House knows well, are going through very difficult times, and critical decisions have got to be taken and taken quickly. The

urgent solution of these problems is of great importance to our national economy and to the livelihood of a very large number of people in this country. It is, therefore, most desirable that the Minister concerned should be able to concentrate his time and thought upon this task, and not have to divide his attention between those and other responsibilities of an unconnected character, such as the provision of tanks, guns and shells, and things like boots.
The development and procurement of those items, of which the Army is the largest user, will, I am sure, be carried out just as efficiently by the War Office as they have been by the Ministry of Supply. Therefore, what I would say to the House is this. I would ask the House to look at these arrangements, look at this change, not in the light of the question, "Will they produce some dramatic improvement in the procurement and supply arrangements of the Services?" I believe those arrangements have been pretty efficient, having regard to the very difficult problems involved, and that they will continue to be efficient under the new arrangements. I see no reason why these arrangements should reduce the efficiency of the supply system.
There are those who think that the War Office, when it will be able to deal directly with its suppliers, may be able to improve arrangements. There are two views on that. I am unable to say one way or the other, but we shall have experience of both systems. I would ask the House to look at these changes not so much in the light of a reorganisation of the supply arrangements, but rather in the light of the urgent need for a single Minister to look at the problems of civil aviation and of the aircraft industry as a whole, and to try to help that industry—both those industries—arrive at constructive and realistic solutions to the extremely critical problems which face them, and which, if there is no solution, will have very serious consequences for our economy and, as I have said, for the livelihood of very many people who are employed in them.

Mr. Shinwell: Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point which so far he has failed to do? Before this decision was reached the Ministry of


Supply, among other functions, was responsible for research. The Ministry of Defence had a research department, as he well knows. Now I understand the position to be this. The Ministry of Defence will continue its research department—unless it is to be transferred to some other Department: I do not know. The Ministry of Aviation, his own Department, will engage in research. The Admiralty will as heretofore continue its research. Is that a satisfactory arrangement? Is it not desirable that research in all matters pertaining to military forces should be under one umbrella?

Mr. Sandys: The Ministry of Defence has no research department. It has a Chief Scientist, but it does not do any research. It is quite simple to explain the changes where research is concerned. The effect will be that those elements of the research programme which relate to items which are being transferred away from the Ministry of Aviation will go with the items to which they belong. That is to say, for example, the transfer of responsibility for tank production to the War Office will carry with it responsibility for the Fighting Vehicle Establishment at Chobham, and so forth.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Service Departments Supply (No. 2) Order, 1959, a draft of which was laid before this House on 2nd November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Committee of Privileges to consist of Twelve Members:

Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Bevan, Mr. R. A. Butler, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Ede, Mr. Gaitskell, Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd, Mr. Mitchison, Mr. Molson, Mr. Nugent, Sir Hendrie Oakshott, and Mr. Turton:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Legh.]

Orders of the Day — HARWICH-FELIXSTOWE FERRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Before I come to the subject matter of the Adjournment debate, I should like to say how sorry I was to read in the papers this evening of the accident in Harwich Harbour involving the troopship "Vienna" and a train ferry boat. Fortunately, I am glad to say, it did not result in any loss of life or any injury.
My reason for raising the subject matter of the Adjournment is that in the threatened withdrawal of the Harwich-Shotley-Felixstowe motor boat ferry service there are a number of matters which should be discussed in the House even though this subject will be considered by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the East Anglian Area on 8th December.
In the first place, I want to say at once that I quite understand the attitude of British Railways who, faced with a deficit in the last eight years of between £3,800 and £6,000 a year and in the immediate future with an estimated capital cost of £25,000 for a new ferry, and a further replacement figure of a similar amount in seven years' time, are doing what is only right in bringing this matter to the notice of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee. From a purely commercial point of view, it would be very improper of them to do otherwise.
But I want to ask whether the Government in such cases as this are going to stand aside and adopt a completely laissez-faire policy and allow the laws of supply and demand to work out regardless of need and regardless of the fact that had the railways not been facing such a big overall deficit in the country as a whole, they might have been able to meet the needs of the town of Harwich for a ferry or indeed provide some modified service or a more up-to-date service than the service which is at present provided.
I am sure that any fair-minded railwayman would admit, although it is


difficult to assess, that there is some obligation of good will to Harwich, since the railways make considerable profits out of the Harwich-Hook services. But what disturbs me is that the immediate cause of the crisis has been the action of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company in increasing their landing charges from £150 a year to £1,000 a year. No doubt they have been able to do this because their charges have been more competitive than those of British Railways on the freight side and in consequence they have attracted business to Felixstowe which otherwise might have gone to Parkestone and Harwich.
This, in my view, is likely to be only a short-term vicious circle of a crisis, now that British Railways, as I trust, will go out and be competitive and attract this business back to them, especially now that they have the freedom on charges to be competitive, particularly on the freight side of their business. Indeed, it would be only fair to say that I notice at present great activity on their part in seeking new trade. I am sure that they realise that it is on their ability to attract freight business to the railways that their future as a whole depends. But this is the real cause of the crisis that faces the railways. It is by curing this, and not in the cheese-paring economies that they are forced to make at the margin of their operations, that they will ever overcome their real difficulties.
In the meantime, whilst this larger crisis is being overcome, they are being forced to lose the good will of the public because of the economy measures which they are forced to take. In this interim period, therefore, it is not to the railways so much as to the Government that I am looking for possible help to overcome this crisis. I do not want to prejudice what will be said at the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, but from the point of view of the town of Harwich the closing of the ferry will have extremely adverse results.
In the last few years Harwich has seen the Navy go, and although great strides have been made to attract new industry to the area, I have no doubt that the closing of the ferry is bound to have an adverse effect on the trade of the town, depending largely as it does now on the amenities which it offers as a seaside resort. The ferry and the

communication it offers to Felixstowe is part of these amenities. Without it, the old town of Harwich will be isolated and the alternative communication to Felixstowe is a 40-mile drive round the Stour Estuary.
I hope, therefore, that if the Transport Users' Consultative Committee considers that the British Railways' case is justified at this moment, the Minister will appoint a committee to look into this vital matter to the town of Harwich to see whether some other form of ownership, of perhaps a modified ferry service, cannot be initiated. Where public ownership fails, cannot we help to get private enterprise on the job? Can the Government give help to start off a private company, or can they help to see that some modified form of service is kept open, at least for the summer months, which certainly would pay? These matters are vital for the trade of Harwich.
I hope that this will be looked into, because surely there is some form of ferry service that would pay. Without a proper inquiry into these questions, it is impossible to be didactic and say exactly what should be done. I feel that I would not be fulfilling my duty as the Member for Harwich if I did not bring this matter to the Minister's attention. I trust that I shall have his co-operation in looking into this question of need, of which I am sure the British Railways themselves are fully aware but, in their present crisis, feel it is not incumbent on themselves to meet alone.
I would remind my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on Monday when he was accusing my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) of old-fashioned Whiggery and said:
While the Tory Party believes in the free play of private enterprise, it has always believed it to be the duty of the State to intervene to correct chronic distortions of the economy which might occur through the unfettered exercise of private enterprise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November. 1959; Vol. 613, c. 160.]
If the Government adhere to this philosophy there is a case for at least looking carefully into the needs of the


town of Harwich for a ferry service. In my submission, the best way this can be done is to appoint a committee to look into the question. In this great year of progress and achievement we must ask ourselves whether it is fair to put the inhabitants of Harwich into the position they were in many years ago before the ferry was started, as there would be no alternative form of transport save a drive of 40 miles compared with the journey from Harwich to Felixstowe by the ferry, which is just over a mile.
In ending the case I am putting to the Minister, I congratulate him on having completed the hat trick, for this is the third time in three successive days that he has answered an Adjournment debate. I am only glad that I have been called a little earlier so that, after answering my points, my hon. Friend can go to an early bed, which I am sure he thoroughly deserves.

7.21 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): First, may I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for what he has said. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you might be rather bored with seeing me appear at this Box as often as I have had to do in the course of this week. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport knew that I was to be his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he said, "The one thing you will have to do is to work." I have certainly had to work this week, but it has been a pleasant experience. My only regret is that last night I did not have more time to develop the full case when we were discussing the London-Yorkshire Motorway. Perhaps it would have been better to have had that debate tonight and this debate on the Harwich Ferry last night.
I turn now to the restrained and responsible case put by my hon. Friend about the Harwich Ferry. He has outlined the basic situation. This ferry has been running for many years, operating between Harwich and Felixstowe and between Harwich and Shotley across the estuary of the Stour. It is operated by two boats owned by British Railways, both of them motor boats. There is the "Epping", which carries 125

passengers and was built in 1914 and there is the "Brightlingsea" which carries 231 passengers and was built in 1925. The two boats carry passengers only, because this is not a vehicle ferry.
The number of trips made each day in winter is six. In the summer the number of trips per day rises to twelve and the fare charged throughout the year is 1s. 6d. single and 3s. return.
During 1958 the ferry carried a total of 103,573 passengers. As the House will expect, the peak numbers of passengers were carried during the summer months: in July 22,000 passengers, in August just under 40,000 and in September 13,000. This would appear to indicate a rather large demand for the ferry, but the other side of the picture is that during the winter months, between October and March inclusive, the total number of passengers is only about 2,000 a month, an average of about 50 a day. The information I have from the British Transport Commission is that of those people there are only about nine regular passengers per day travelling between Felixstowe and Harwich and only four between Shotley and Harwich.
My hon. Friend already indicated to the House that the principal reason why the Commission now wishes to withdraw the ferry is finance. On its revenue account for the last eight years it has operated at a deficit, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. The figures have ranged between a loss of £3,800 and £6,000. In 1958 the deficit was £4,600. I did a little sum this morning when the figures were given to me—I expect ray arithmetic is correct. I worked it out that the Commission lost 10d. on every passenger it carried last year on this service. That is the revenue side. On the capital side, which looks particularly towards the future, the situation is even worse. The "Epping," built in 1914. has now come to the end of its useful life and has to be replaced if the ferry service is to continue. The estimated cost of replacement is of the order of £25,000. The "Brightlingsea," the more modern boat, is due to be replaced within the next seven years.
That is the broad picture of the finances of the ferry. I will now say something about the increase in dock charges made by the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, to which my


hon. Friend also referred. The position is that this private company, which operates the dock at Felixstowe, has by Statute the right to charge a maximum of 1s. per passenger landing or departing from its quays. If this were charged in full on a total of 100,000 passengers it would have meant that the railways would have had to pay £5,000 but, as my hon. Friend has said, some years ago an arrangement was reached between the company and the railways whereby the latter pay a total of £150 per annum for the landing rights.
I am told that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company is a go-ahead concern. Felixstowe is a port which is developing fast and is taking a great deal of traffic which wishes to use a somewhat cheaper type of docking facilities than London provides. Because of this satisfactory development the management of the company came to the conclusion that its need for the quay space used at the moment by the ferry is such that it is no longer justified in allowing the railways to use it at the low figure of £150 a year. For that reason it made a proposal recently that the charge should be £1,000 a year. At once this raised the question of the future of the ferry for the British Transport Commission because, losing money on its revenue account anyhow, and faced with a substantial sum to be found on capital account in the years ahead, the decision of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company to increase the charge so substantially meant that the Commission had to look again at the position, and it reached the decision to propose the closure of the ferry.
On this point I will say something about the commercial policy which is being followed by the British Transport Commission. In the previous Parliament many debates took place, particularly on the Adjournment, about the policy of the British Transport Commission to close branch railway lines and other uneconomic activities. As I said during the Adjournment debate on Tuesday last, the main problem to be faced by the Commission is somehow to reduce the enormous expanse of its undertaking. No longer is it possible in this country for us to support the full range of railway services economically, and therefore these unpleasant and often painful decisions have to be made by the Commission

to cut out and to reduce, and often to remove, uneconomic services.
What the Commission seeks to do is to reduce its operating losses, and thereby make progress towards a point when it will break even in its accounts. This involves concentrating on those services which it operates which either pay their way now or which offer some reasonable prospects of paying their way in the future. That is the basic policy which the Commission is adopting, and it is one which has the general support of the Government.
May I turn now to this proposal? It is a proposal made by the British Transport Commission, to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, and my hon. Friend has already said, and the House knows, that these committees were set up by the Transport Act, 1947, with the intention of safeguarding the public interest. It is important to realise that these are committees of users, and not some kind of sham behind which the Commission operates. A glance at the membership of these Transport Users' Consultative Committees makes it clear that they represent, as they were intended to do, a very wide cross-section of user interests.
Agriculture is represented, and commerce, industry, shipping, labour and local authorities all have their representatives on these committees. The chairman and two of the members, who are independent, are appointed by the Minister of Transport, and the procedure is that when the Commission has a proposal of this kind to make for the reduction or the withdrawal of services, it must submit its proposals first to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the area or region in which the undertaking lies.
In this case, as my hon. Friend has said, the proposal has been submitted to the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for East Anglia. Once the proposal is before a committee, a very full investigation takes place. People often criticise the committees on the ground that they do not act in a judicial way in the sense that there is not a judicial hearing, with witnesses called and with counsel addressing the committees in lengthy, and presumably well-paid, speeches. But our experience is


that the procedure under which the committees operate now, which is far more informal, with far more give and take across the table, if I may use that sort of expression, is infinitely preferable to the more judicial type of inquiry.

Mr. Ridsdale: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but may I ask him if the committee would consider alternative forms of transport if it decided—but perhaps my hon. Friend is coming to that point?

Mr. Hay: I am coming to that point. The position is that it conducts a very full investigation of the whole of the proposal. The committee looks into the economics and into the sums that have been done by the Commission. It looks into the question of any local inconvenience that will be caused, and, in this case, presumably, that would be a point which would rank very high in its study. It looks into the alternative facilities that there may be to the service which is being withdrawn, and I have no doubt that here again in this case the committee will look very carefully indeed at the fact that, if the service is withdrawn, there is only, as an alternative these rather lengthy bus journeys round the two rivers when people want to cross from one side to the other. The committees can and do look at any individual circumstances brought to their notice.
Once the committee has given that consideration, it comes to a decision and its conclusion then goes to the Central Consultative Committee for confirmation. If the proposals are confirmed by the Central Committee, which, incidentally, goes into the whole matter again, the Minister of Transport is then informed, and if necessary he can give the British Transport Commission a direction as to the course which it is to follow with regard to the particular proposal. I am told that in practice and in fact, there has never been an occasion on which the Minister needed to give such a direction, because the British Transport Commission, to its great credit, operates in the closest touch with these committees, and invariably accepts the verdict of the committees on their proposals.
With regard to this particular proposition for the Harwich-Felixstowe-Shotley Ferry, the present position is, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for East Anglia is now seized of the proposal, and will be holding a hearing on the whole matter on 8th December. From the point of view of my right hon. Friend, the case is now in the consultative machinery, and I am afraid that I cannot go into the merits, though I can see that there are merits on both sides. I have tried shortly to outline the facts. There it is; these are matters which the committee will have to consider.
The committee may approve the proposal made by the Commission, or reject it, or—and I address this to my hon. Friend particularly in the light of what he said—it can offer suggestions for further consideration by the British Transport Commission. It might, for example, suggest that further inquiry should be made whether some private boat service could be persuaded somehow to run the service in future, not perhaps on the same time-table or on the same scale, but to cover the particular anxieties of local residents. Whatever the Transport Users' Consultative Committee decides must come eventually to the Central Committee, and it then goes on to the Minister.
In these circumstances, my hon. Friend will appreciate my situation representing the Minister here tonight. I cannot go into the merits of the application, and we honestly think that it would be better for the whole matter to go right through the consultative machinery, which was set up by Parliament for this purpose. My hon. Friend said that he hoped that the Government would not adopt a laissez-faire attitude in this matter. Frankly, we do not intend to adopt a laissez-faire attitude in any matter. But in the light of the fact that we have got this machinery here and that it is working well throughout the country, and the fact that this particular proposal is only at its very early stage, and has not even started, strictly speaking, on its process through the machine, I do not think that it would be right for my right hon. Friend at this moment to appoint an inquiry, as my hon. Friend suggested, to go into the matter. There is the machinery, which works well, as I have said, and that is


the sort of inquiry which the people in Harwich and Felixstowe would want.
My hon. Friend however, inferred and raised a somewhat wider issue that the Government should intervene with the Commission to stop it making economies of this kind, which he said were inclined to alienate the sympathies of the public to its difficulties. I am paraphrasing what my hon. Friend said, but I think I have got his point correctly—that we should take some action with the Commission to prevent it doing things which the public do not like and thereby making the public less sympathetic to the railways. I understand that to be the point which he was making. If that is what my hon. Friend means, I must say that it is not the policy of the Government to regard the British Transport Commission as anything else but what in fact it is—a commercial undertaking.

Mr. Ridsdale: I think that if my hon. Friend reads my speech, he will see that I also regard the British Transport Commission as a commercial undertaking. The point I am making is that there are some marginal cases of need, and it is not the obligation of the Commission as a commercial company to meet that kind of need. It may and could be said that it is the responsibility of the Government, if it does not adopt a laissez faire policy, to look into that need.

Mr. Hay: I thought that was what my hon. Friend meant. We regard the Commission as a commercial undertaking operating, as I said on Tuesday night, in a competitive field. It does not have a complete monopoly of transport in this country. It is true that there are these marginal, borderline cases where it may well be argued that the Government, for social reasons quite divorced from economics, should intervene and give instructions to the Commission to take this or that action. That has not been the policy of the Government heretofore. Though I will report to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said, I should not like to hold out high hopes to him or to the House that we were likely to change our attitude on this matter.
Anyhow, I hope that what I have said tonight will perhaps reassure my hon. Friend's constituents that the matter is by no means cut and dried but that there is quite a long way to go before a decision is finally reached, and that in the intervening stages there will be plenty of opportunities for the local inhabitants to make their views known, because the Committee has been set up to represent users and it is the users in Harwich and district with which we are mainly concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eight o'clock.